Regimens of ultrasound surveillance for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes

Jane G Woolcock; Rosalie M Grivell; Jodie M Dodd

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011371.pub2

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Regímenes de vigilancia ecográfica en embarazos gemelares para mejorar los resultados

Información

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011371.pub2 Copiar DOI

Base de datos:

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Versión publicada:

07 noviembre 2017see what's new

Tipo:

Intervention

Etapa:

Review

Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

Grupo Cochrane de Embarazo y parto

Copyright:

Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

Jane G Woolcock

Correspondencia a: Women's and Babies' Division, Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Adelaide, Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, Australia

[email protected]
Rosalie M Grivell

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Flinders University and Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia
Jodie M Dodd

School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Adelaide, Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, Australia

Contributions of authors

J Woolcock (JW) is the contact person and guarantor for the review. J Woolcock developed and wrote the background and methods of the protocol and co‐ordinated the protocol development.

R Grivell provided advice from a clinical and methodological perspective. R Grivell and J Woolcock checked the studies for inclusion and independently extracted data from the included study.

J Dodd provided advice from a clinical and methodological perspective.

Declarations of interest

J Woolcock : none known.

R Grivell : none known.

J Dodd : none known.

Acknowledgements

As part of the pre‐publication editorial process, four peers (an editor and three referees who are external to the editorial team), a member of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's international panel of consumers and the Group's Statistical Adviser commented on this review.

This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Nov 07

Regimens of ultrasound surveillance for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes

Review

Jane G Woolcock, Rosalie M Grivell, Jodie M Dodd

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011371.pub2

2014 Nov 12

Regimens of ultrasound surveillance for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes

Protocol

Jane G Woolcock, Rosalie M Grivell, Jodie M Dodd

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011371

Differences between protocol and review

There are some differences between our published protocol (Woolcock 2014) and the full review ‐ these are listed below.

We added an additional search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

We have updated our methods in line with the standard methods of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth, this includes methods for dealing with outcome data from multiple pregnancies, the use of GRADE and inclusion of summary of findings Table for the main comparison.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy;

PICO

Population

Intervention

Comparison

Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Figure 1

Study flow diagram

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth, Outcome 1 Perinatal mortality (post randomisation).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth, Outcome 2 Stillbirth.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth, Outcome 3 Neonatal death.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth, Outcome 4 Gestational age at birth.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth, Outcome 5 Infant requiring ventilation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth, Outcome 6 Admission to special care or intensive care units.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth, Outcome 7 Caesarean section any.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth, Outcome 8 Elective caesarean section.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth, Outcome 9 Emergency caesarean section.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth, Outcome 10 Induction of labour.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth, Outcome 11 Antenatal admission to hospital.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes

Fetal growth + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes
Patient or population: women with twin pregnancies were randomised from 25 weeks Setting: tertiary level referral hospitals in Australia, New Zealand and South West Asia Intervention: fetal growth plus Doppler Comparison: fetal growth
Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects^ (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with fetal growth + umbilical artery Doppler	Risk with fetal growth
Perinatal mortality (after randomisation)	Study population		RR 0.88 (0.32 to 2.41)	1052 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low¹
	15 per 1000	13 per 1000 (5 to 37)
Neonatal death	Study population		RR 1.01 (0.29 to 3.46)	1052 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low¹
	9 per 1000	10 per 1000 (3 to 33)
Birth less than 28 weeks	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	The trial included in this review did not report this outcome.
Gestational age at birth (weeks)	The mean gestational age at birth was 35.8 weeks	The mean gestational age at birth was 35.7 weeks	MD 0.10 weeks longer with growth plus Doppler (0.39 shorter to 0.59 longer)	526 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate²
Caesarean section (any)	Study population		RR 1.00 (0.81 to 1.23)	526 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ High
	409 per 1000	409 per 1000 (331 to 503)
Induction of labour	Study population		RR 1.10 (0.80 to 1.50)	526 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate³
	216 per 1000	238 per 1000 (173 to 324)
Antenatal admission to hospital	Study population		RR 0.96 (0.80 to 1.15)	526 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ High
	477 per 1000	458 per 1000 (382 to 549)
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
¹ Events are rare and wide confidence intervals cross line of no effect (‐2). ² Confidence limits cross line of no effect and 0.5 in both directions (‐1). ³ Wide confidence intervals crossing line of no effect (‐1).

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Perinatal mortality (post randomisation) Show forest plot	1	1052	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.88 [0.32, 2.41]

2 Stillbirth Show forest plot	1	526	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.67 [0.11, 3.99]

3 Neonatal death Show forest plot	1	1052	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.01 [0.29, 3.46]

4 Gestational age at birth Show forest plot	1	526	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.10 [‐0.39, 0.59]

5 Infant requiring ventilation Show forest plot	1	1052	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.59, 1.25]

6 Admission to special care or intensive care units Show forest plot	1	1052	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.96 [0.88, 1.05]

7 Caesarean section any Show forest plot	1	526	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.81, 1.23]

8 Elective caesarean section Show forest plot	1	526	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.77, 1.47]

9 Emergency caesarean section Show forest plot	1	526	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.66, 1.32]

10 Induction of labour Show forest plot	1	526	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.10 [0.80, 1.50]

11 Antenatal admission to hospital Show forest plot	1	526	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.96 [0.80, 1.15]

Comparison 1. Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler versus fetal growth

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Regímenes de vigilancia ecográfica en embarazos gemelares para mejorar los resultados

Información