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: 3.85). 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
  • Source
    • "In a systematic review of the accuracy of first trimester ultrasound for the diagnosis of early embryonic demise, Jeve et al. (2011) found that there was a paucity of high-quality prospective data on which to base guidance on diagnosing miscarriage. Three further recent publications suggested that criteria used to define miscarriage based on transvaginal scan (TVS) measurements of gestation sac and embryo size were unreliable (Abdallah et al., 2011a,b; Pexsters et al., 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Does a logistic regression model and scoring system to predict viability of an intrauterine pregnancy of uncertain viability (PUV) perform as well in an independent patient group as the original patient group? The model and scoring system showed good performance on external validation confirming their value for the prediction of miscarriage/viability in PUV patients up to 11-14 weeks of gestation. Several individual ultrasound and demographic factors have been described as predictors for miscarriage. A logistic regression model and simple scoring system using basic clinical and ultrasound features, such as maternal age, bleeding score, mean gestational sac diameter (MSD) and presence or absence of yolk sac, have been developed to allow patient-specific prediction of viability of PUV beyond the first trimester. Prospective observational external validation cohort study in two inner city early pregnancy assessment units over a period of 18 months. All consecutive women with a PUV were recruited. Ultrasound (mean sac diameter and presence of yolk sac) and demographic variables (maternal age, bleeding score and gestational age) were noted. The outcome measure was first trimester (11-14 week) viability. Women with unknown first trimester outcome were excluded. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calibration plots were constructed. Test performance was compared with the original development data set. A new model and scoring system, which did not include gestational age, was built and evaluated. Of the 575 women who were recruited, first trimester outcome was known for 89.2% (n = 513). The model could only be validated in 400 patients, due to missing values in model variables and outcome. The model predicted viability with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.845 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.806-0.884] compared with 0.774 (95% CI, 0.701-0.848) in the original study. The AUC for the scoring system was 0.832 (95% CI, 0.792-0.872) compared with 0.771 (95% CI, 0.698-0.844) from the original study data set. The new model and the scoring system, excluding gestational age, could be evaluated on 503 patients and resulted in an AUC of 0.801 (95% CI, 0.765-0.841) for the model and 0.773 (95% CI, 0.733-0.812) for the scoring system. Approximately 22% of patients could not be validated due to missing variables and for 11% of patients the first trimester outcome was unknown. Both the model and the scoring system showed excellent performance on external validation confirming their generalizability and utility in prediction of viability beyond the first trimester in clinical practice. An advantage of the mathematical models original Mo and new Mn and scoring systems original SSo and new SSn is that they can provide women with an individualized probability of the viability of their pregnancy using only demographic information, symptoms and TVS findings. Furthermore, the risk of miscarriage can be given immediately following examination. T.B. is supported by the Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. This research is supported by Research Council KUL GOA MaNet, iMinds 2012, Belgian Federal Science Policy Office IUAP P719. VVB is a postdoctoral fellow of the Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO). There are no conflicts of interest.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2013 · Human Reproduction
  • 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.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2015 · PLoS ONE
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Miscarriage is the most common serious pregnancy complication affecting approximately 30% of biochemical pregnancies and 11-20% of clinically recognised pregnancies. The diagnosis of miscarriage is made most commonly by trans-vaginal ultrasound (TVS) assessment. Evidence-based criteria should be employed for the diagnosis of delayed and incomplete miscarriage. Complete miscarriage should not be diagnosed with TVS alone without serial biochemical confirmation (unless an intrauterine gestation sac has previously been visualised). After a clinical assessment suggesting complete miscarriage, 45% of women will have retained tissue on ultrasound, whilst women with an ultrasound scan showing an empty uterus with a history suggestive of miscarriage will be found to have an ectopic pregnancy in 6% of cases. Prediction of the diagnosis of miscarriage using maternal history and ultrasound features may be helpful in counselling women towards likely pregnancy outcome and planning appropriate further assessment. Use of three-dimensional ultrasound has not improved diagnosis of miscarriage. After a diagnosis of miscarriage, half the women undergo significant psychological effects, which may last for up to 12 months.
    No preview · Article · Jul 2009 · Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology
Show more