Reference ranges for Doppler indices of umbilical and fetal middle cerebral arteries and cerebroplacental ratio: systematic review

Oros, D. ; Ruiz-Martinez, S. ; Staines-Urias, E. ; Conde-Agudelo, A. ; Villar, J. ; Fabre, E. (Universidad de Zaragoza) ; Papageorghiou, A.T.

Resumen: Objective: To assess studies reporting reference ranges for umbilical artery (UA) and fetal middle cerebral artery (MCA) Doppler indices and cerebroplacental ratio (CPR), using a set of predefined methodological quality criteria for study design, statistical analysis and reporting methods.
Methods: This was a systematic review of observational studies in which the primary aim was to create reference ranges for UA and MCA Doppler indices and CPR in fetuses of singleton gestations. A search for relevant articles was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science (from inception to 31 December 2016) and references of the retrieved articles. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. Studies were scored against a predefined set of independently agreed methodological criteria and an overall quality score was assigned to each study. Linear multiple regression analysis assessing the association between quality scores and study characteristics was performed.
Results: Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The highest potential for bias was noted in the following fields: ‘ultrasound quality control measures’, in which only two studies demonstrated a comprehensive quality-control strategy; ‘number of measurements taken for each Doppler variable’, which was apparent in only three studies; ‘sonographer experience’, in which no study on CPR reported clearly the experience or training of the sonographers, while only three studies on UA Doppler and four on MCA Doppler did; and ‘blinding of measurements’, in which only one study, on UA Doppler, reported that sonographers were blinded to the measurement recorded during the examination. Sample size estimations were present in only seven studies. No predictors of quality were found on multiple regression analysis. Reference ranges varied significantly with important clinical implications for what is considered normal or abnormal, even when restricting the analysis to the highest scoring studies.
Conclusions: There is considerable methodological heterogeneity in studies reporting reference ranges for UA and MCA Doppler indices and CPR, and the resulting references have important implications for clinical practice. There is a need for the standardization of methodologies for Doppler velocimetry and for the development of reference standards, which can be correctly interpreted and applied in clinical practice. We propose a set of recommendations for this purpose.

Idioma: Inglés

DOI: 10.1002/uog.20102

Año: 2019

Publicado en: ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY 53 (2019), 454-464
ISSN: 0960-7692

Factor impacto JCR: 5.571 (2019)

Categ. JCR: ACOUSTICS rank: 2 / 32 = 0.062 (2019) - Q1 - T1
Categ. JCR: RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING rank: 12 / 133 = 0.09 (2019) - Q1 - T1
Categ. JCR: OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY rank: 5 / 82 = 0.061 (2019) - Q1 - T1

Factor impacto SCIMAGO: 2.855 - Medicine (miscellaneous) (Q1) - Obstetrics and Gynecology (Q1) - Reproductive Medicine (Q1) - Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging (Q1) - Radiological and Ultrasound Technology (Q1)

Tipo y forma: Review (PostPrint)

Área (Departamento): Área Obstetricia y Ginecología (Dpto. Cirugía,Ginecol.Obstetr.)