Article

Jeve Y, Rana R, Bhide A, et al. Accuracy of first trimester ultrasound in the diagnosis of early embryonic demise: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 38: 489-496

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leicester General Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 3.14). 11/2011; 38(5):489-96. DOI: 10.1002/uog.10108
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate, by systematic review of the literature, the accuracy of first-trimester ultrasound in diagnosing early embryonic demise.
We searched MEDLINE (1951-2011), Embase (1980-2011) and the Cochrane Library (2010) for relevant citations. The reference lists of all known primary and review articles were examined. Language restrictions were not applied. Studies which evaluated the accuracy of first-trimester ultrasonography in pregnant women for the diagnosis of early embryonic demise were selected in a two-stage process and their data extracted by two reviewers. Accuracy measures including sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios (LRs) for abnormal and normal test results were calculated for each study and for each test threshold.
Eight primary articles with four test categories (18 2 × 2 tables), involving 872 women, evaluated the accuracy of ultrasound in diagnosing early embryonic demise. The lower limit of the 95% CI for specificity was > 0.95 in only two tests. These were an empty gestational sac with mean diameter of ≥ 25 mm and absent yolk sac with a mean gestational sac diameter of ≥ 20 mm (specificity, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.00 for both).
There is a paucity of high-quality, prospective data on which to base guidelines for the accurate diagnosis of early pregnancy demise. The findings are limited by the small number of studies and patients, the age of the studies, inclusion of symptomatic and asymptomatic women and variable reference standards for diagnosis of early pregnancy demise. Before guidelines for the safe management of threatened miscarriage can be formulated, there is an urgent need for an appropriately powered, prospective study using current ultrasound technology and an agreed reference standard for pregnancy success or loss.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Yadava Jeve, Dec 22, 2013
0 Followers
 · 
185 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) published in high impact factor (IF) radiology journals is associated with citation rates. All SR and MA published in English between Jan 2007-Dec 2011, in radiology journals with an IF >2.75, were identified on Ovid MEDLINE. The Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist for study quality, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for study completeness, was applied to each SR & MA. Each SR & MA was then searched in Google Scholar to yield a citation rate. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between AMSTAR and PRISMA results with citation rate. Multivariate analyses were performed to account for the effect of journal IF and journal 5-year IF on correlation with citation rate. Values were reported as medians with interquartile range (IQR) provided. 129 studies from 11 journals were included (50 SR and 79 MA). Median AMSTAR result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5-9) and median PRISMA result was 23.0/27 (IQR: 21-25). The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73 citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40-1.17). There was a positive correlation between both AMSTAR and PRISMA results and SR & MA citation rate; ρ=0.323 (P=0.0002) and ρ=0.327 (P=0.0002) respectively. Positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and PRISMA results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) and ρ=0.256 (P=0.004), and after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ=0.235 (P=0.008) and ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) respectively. There is a positive correlation between the quality and the completeness of a reported SR or MA with citation rate which persists when adjusted for journal IF and journal 5-year IF.
    PLoS ONE 03/2015; 10(3):e0119892. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0119892 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 11/2011; 38(5):487-8. DOI:10.1002/uog.10110 · 3.14 Impact Factor
  • Clinical Therapeutics 12/2011; 33(12):B11-5. DOI:10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.11.008 · 2.59 Impact Factor
Show more