Dataset Information

Prognostic accuracy of antenatal Doppler ultrasound for adverse perinatal outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This systematic review examined available literature on the prognostic accuracy of Doppler ultrasound for adverse perinatal outcomes in low/middle-income countries (LMIC).

Design

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus from inception to April 2020.

Setting

Observational or interventional studies from LMICs.

Participants

Singleton pregnancies of any risk profile.

Interventions

Umbilical artery (UA), middle cerebral artery (MCA), cerebroplacental ratio (CPR), uterine artery (UtA), fetal descending aorta (FDA), ductus venosus, umbilical vein and inferior vena cava.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Perinatal death, stillbirth, neonatal death, expedited delivery for fetal distress, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, low birth weight, fetal growth restriction, admission to neonatal intensive care unit, neonatal acidosis, Apgar scores, preterm birth, fetal anaemia, respiratory distress syndrome, length of hospital stay, birth asphyxia and composite adverse perinatal outcomes (CAPO).

Results

We identified 2825 records, and 30 (including 4977 women) from Africa (40.0%, n=12), Asia (56.7%, n=17) and South America (3.3%, n=01) were included. Many individual studies reported associations and promising predictive values of UA Doppler for various adverse perinatal outcomes mostly in high-risk pregnancies, and moderate to high predictive values of MCA, CPR and UtA Dopplers for CAPO. A few studies suggested that the MCA and FDA may be potent predictors of fetal anaemia. No randomised clinical trial (RCT) was found. Most studies were of suboptimal quality, poorly powered and characterised by wide variations in outcome classifications, the timing for the Doppler tests and study populations.

Conclusion

Local evidence to guide how antenatal Doppler ultrasound should be used in LMIC is lacking. Well-designed studies, preferably RCTs, are required. Standardisation of practice and classification of perinatal outcomes across countries, following the international standards, is imperative.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019128546.

SUBMITTER: Ali S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8640672 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess the prognostic accuracies of Doppler ultrasound measures in predicting adverse perinatal outcomes for pregnancies complicated with preexisting or gestational diabetes mellitus. DATA SOURCES An online database search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Emcare from inception to April 2022 was conducted. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Studies reporting singleton, nonanomalous fetuses of women with either preexisting (type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus) or gestational diabetes mellitus during pregnancy were included. In addition, the included studies assessed cerebroplacental ratio and middle cerebral artery and/or umbilical artery pulsatility index in the prediction of either: preterm birth, cesarean delivery for fetal distress, APGAR (Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration) score <7 at 5 minutes, neonatal intensive care unit admission (>24 hours), acute respiratory distress syndrome, jaundice, hypoglycemia, hypocalcemia, or neonatal death. METHODS The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed and 610 articles were identified, of which 15 were included. Two authors independently extracted prognostic data from each article and assessed the study applicability and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) scoring criteria. RESULTS A total of 15 studies were included in the review and comprised prospective (n=10; 66%) and retrospective (n=5; 33%) cohorts. Sensitivity and positive predictive values varied widely across each Doppler measurement. Umbilical artery sensitivities were higher than those of cerebroplacental ratio and middle cerebral artery for hypoglycemia, jaundice, neonatal intensive care unit admission, respiratory distress, and preterm birth. Cerebroplacental ratio was the most reported index test; however, prognostic accuracy was worse than that of umbilical artery and middle cerebral artery Doppler across all adverse perinatal outcomes. Significant risk of bias was present in 14 (94%) studies, with substantial heterogeneity observed across studies in terms of study design and outcomes assessed. CONCLUSION Abnormal umbilical artery pulsatility index may be of more clinical value in predicting adverse perinatal outcomes compared with cerebroplacental ratio and middle cerebral artery pulsatility index in diabetic pregnancies. Further evaluation of umbilical artery Doppler measurements in diabetic pregnancies using standardized variables across studies is required for broader clinical application. The significant association between abnormal Doppler measurement and hypoglycemia may warrant further investigation.

Project description:ObjectiveDoppler ultrasonographic assessment of the cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) and middle cerebral artery (MCA) is widely used as an adjunct to umbilical artery (UA) Doppler to identify fetuses at risk of adverse perinatal outcome. However, reported estimates of its accuracy vary considerably. The aim of this study was to review systematically the prognostic accuracies of CPR and MCA Doppler in predicting adverse perinatal outcome, and to compare these with UA Doppler, in order to identify whether CPR and MCA Doppler evaluation are of added value to UA Doppler.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched, from inception to June 2016, for studies on the prognostic accuracy of UA Doppler compared with CPR and/or MCA Doppler in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome in women with a singleton pregnancy of any risk profile. Risk of bias and concerns about applicability were assessed using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) tool. Meta-analysis was performed for multiple adverse perinatal outcomes. Using hierarchal summary receiver-operating characteristics meta-regression models, the prognostic accuracy of CPR vs MCA Doppler was compared indirectly, and CPR and MCA Doppler vs UA Doppler compared directly.ResultsThe search identified 4693 articles, of which 128 studies (involving 47?748 women) were included. Risk of bias or suboptimal reporting was detected in 120/128 studies (94%) and substantial heterogeneity was found, which limited subgroup analyses for fetal growth and gestational age. A large variation was observed in reported sensitivities and specificities, and in thresholds used. CPR outperformed UA Doppler in the prediction of composite adverse outcome (as defined in the included studies) (P?<?0.001) and emergency delivery for fetal distress (P?=?0.003), but was comparable to UA Doppler for the other outcomes. MCA Doppler performed significantly worse than did UA Doppler in the prediction of low Apgar score (P?=?0.017) and emergency delivery for fetal distress (P?=?0.034). CPR outperformed MCA Doppler in the prediction of composite adverse outcome (P?<?0.001) and emergency delivery for fetal distress (P?=?0.013).ConclusionCalculating the CPR with MCA Doppler can add value to UA Doppler assessment in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome in women with a singleton pregnancy. However, it is unclear to which subgroup of pregnant women this applies. The effectiveness of the CPR in guiding clinical management needs to be evaluated in clinical trials. © 2017 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Project description:IntroductionMore than three-fourths of adverse perinatal outcomes (preterm, small for gestational age, low birth weight, congenital anomalies, stillbirth and neonatal death) occur in low-income and middle-income countries. These adverse perinatal outcomes can have both short-term and long-term consequences on maternal mental health. Even though there are few empirical studies on the effect of perinatal loss on maternal mental illness, comprehensive information on the impact of adverse perinatal outcomes in resource-limited settings is scarce. Therefore, we aim to systematically review and synthesise evidence on the effect of adverse perinatal outcomes on maternal mental health.Methods and analysisThe primary outcome of our review will be postpartum maternal mental illness (anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and postpartum psychosis) following adverse perinatal outcomes. All peer-reviewed primary studies published in English will be retrieved from databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL Ultimate (EBSCO), PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus and Global Health through the three main searching terms-adverse perinatal outcomes, maternal mental illness and settings, with a variant of subject headings and keywords. We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist to assess the quality of the studies we are including. The review findings will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement. Estimate-based meta-analysis will be performed. We will assess heterogeneity between studies using the I2 statistics and publication bias will be checked using funnel plots and Egger's test. A subgroup analysis will be conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity (if available). Finally, the certainty of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationSince this systematic review does not involve human participants, ethical approval is not required. The review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42023405980.

Project description:BackgroundImproving maternal health has been a primary goal of international health agencies for many years, with the aim of reducing maternal and child deaths and improving access to antenatal care (ANC) services, particularly in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). Health interventions with these aims have received more attention from a clinical effectiveness perspective than for cost impact and economic efficiency.MethodsWe collected data on resource use and costs as part of a large, multi-country study assessing the use of routine antenatal screening ultrasound (US) with the aim of considering the implications for economic efficiency. We assessed typical antenatal outpatient and hospital-based (facility) care for pregnant women, in general, with selective complication-related data collection in women participating in a large maternal health registry and clinical trial in five LMICs. We estimated average costs from a facility/health system perspective for outpatient and inpatient services. We converted all country-level currency cost estimates to 2015 United States dollars (USD). We compared average costs across countries for ANC visits, deliveries, higher-risk pregnancies, and complications, and conducted sensitivity analyses.ResultsOur study included sites in five countries representing different regions. Overall, the relative cost of individual ANC and delivery-related healthcare use was consistent among countries, generally corresponding to country-specific income levels. ANC outpatient visit cost estimates per patient among countries ranged from 15 to 30 USD, based on average counts for visits with and without US. Estimates for antenatal screening US visits were more costly than non-US visits. Costs associated with higher-risk pregnancies were influenced by rates of hospital delivery by cesarean section (mean per person delivery cost estimate range: 25-65 USD).ConclusionsDespite substantial differences among countries in infrastructures and health system capacity, there were similarities in resource allocation, delivery location, and country-level challenges. Overall, there was no clear suggestion that adding antenatal screening US would result in either major cost savings or major cost increases. However, antenatal screening US would have higher training and maintenance costs. Given the lack of clinical effectiveness evidence and greater resource constraints of LMICs, it is unlikely that introducing antenatal screening US would be economically efficient in these settings--on the demand side (i.e., patients) or supply side (i.e., healthcare providers).Trial registrationTrial number: NCT01990625 (First posted: November 21, 2013 on https://clinicaltrials.gov ).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Depression in pregnancy (antenatal depression) in many low and middle-income countries is not well documented and has not been given priority for intervention due to competing urgencies and the belief that it does not immediately cause fatalities, which mainly emanated from lack of comprehensive research on the area. To fill this research gap, this systematic review was conducted to investigate the burden of antenatal depression and its consequences on birth outcomes in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS:We systematically searched the databases: CINHAL, MEDLINE, EMCare, PubMed, PSyc Info, Psychiatry online, and Scopus for studies conducted in low and middle-income countries about antenatal depression and its association with adverse birth outcomes. We have included observational studies (case control, cross-sectional and cohort studies), written in English-language, scored in the range of "good quality" on the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), and were published between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017. Studies were excluded if a standardized approach was not used to measure main outcomes, they were conducted on restricted (high risk) populations, or had fair to poor quality score on NOS. We used Higgins and Egger's to test for heterogeneity and publication bias. Primary estimates were pooled using a random effect meta-analysis. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO with protocol number CRD42017082624. RESULT:We included 64 studies (with 44, 035 women) on antenatal depression and nine studies (with 5,540 women) on adverse birth outcomes. Antenatal depression was higher in the lower-income countries (Pooled Prevalence (PP) = 34.0%; 95%CI: 33.1%-34.9%) compared to the middle-income countries (PP = 22.7%, 95%CI: 20.1%-25.2%) and increased over the three trimesters. Pregnant women with a history of economic difficulties, poor marital relationships, common mental disorders, poor social support, bad obstetric history, and exposure to violence were more likely to report antenatal depression. The risk of having preterm birth (2.41; 1.47-3.56) and low birth weight (1.66; 1.06-2.61) was higher in depressed mothers compared to mothers without depression. CONCLUSIONS:Antenatal depression was higher in low-income countries than in middle-income countries and was found to be a risk factor for low birth weight and preterm births. The economic, maternal, and psychosocial risk factors were responsible for the occurrence of antenatal depression. While there could be competing priority agenda to juggle for health policymakers in low-income countries, interventions for antenatal depression should be reprioritized as vitally important in order to prevent the poor maternal and perinatal outcomes identified in this review.

Project description:In high-income countries, group antenatal care (ANC) offers an alternative to individual care and is associated with improved attendance, client satisfaction, and health outcomes for pregnant women and newborns. In low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, this model could be adapted to address low antenatal care uptake and improve quality. However, evidence on key attributes of a group care model for low-resource settings remains scant. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on models of group antenatal care in LMICs to identify attributes that may increase the relevance, acceptability and effectiveness of group ANC in such settings. We systematically searched five databases and conducted hand and reference searches. We also conducted key informant interviews with researchers and program implementers who have introduced group antenatal care models in LMICs. Using a pre-defined evidence summary template, we extracted evidence on key attributes-like session content and frequency, and group composition and organization-of group care models introduced across LMIC settings. Our systematic literature review identified nine unique descriptions of group antenatal care models. We supplemented this information with evidence from 10 key informant interviews. We synthesized evidence from these 19 data sources to identify attributes of group care models for pregnant women that appeared consistently across all of them. We considered these components that are fundamental to the delivery of group antenatal care. We also identified attributes that need to be tailored to the context in which they are implemented to meet local standards for comprehensive ANC, for example, the number of sessions and the session content. We compiled these attributes to codify a composite "generic" model of group antenatal care for adaptation and implementation in LMIC settings. With this combination of standard and flexible components, group antenatal care, a service delivery alternative that has been successfully introduced and implemented in high-income country settings, can be adapted for improving provision and experiences of care for pregnant women in LMIC. Any conclusions about the benefits of this model for women, babies, and health systems in LMICs, however, must be based on robust evaluations of group antenatal care programs in those settings.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the administration of intramuscular antenatal corticosteroids to women at risk of preterm birth to prevent preterm-associated neonatal mortality and morbidity. Poor quality medicines are a major problem for health services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), however the quality of antenatal corticosteroids is not well understood. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of available studies describing the quality of recommended injectable antenatal corticosteroids (dexamethasone or betamethasone) in LMICs.MethodsStructured search strategy was applied to six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Global Index Medicus, WHO Medicines Quality Database), without year or language restrictions. Any primary study reporting any medicine quality parameter (Active Pharmacological Ingredient, pH and sterility) for injectable dexamethasone or betamethasone was eligible. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data on included studies and applied Medicine Quality Assessment Reporting Guidelines tool to assess study quality. Results were reported narratively, stratified by country of manufacture, organisation type and level of care.ResultsIn total, 15,547 citations were screened with two eligible studies identified that focussed on dexamethasone quality (no studies of betamethasone were identified). One study included 19 samples from 9 LMICs, and the other included "less than 100 samples" from India. The prevalence of failed dexamethasone samples ranged from 3.14% to 32.2% due to inadequate Active Pharmacological Ingredient. A higher prevalence of failed dexamethasone samples were seen at the point of care and the public sector.ConclusionsPoor quality maternal and newborn health medicines can endanger women and newborns. Though available evidence on antenatal corticosteroids quality in LMICs is limited, results suggested poor quality dexamethasone may be prevalent in some countries. More primary studies are required to confirm these findings and guide policymakers on procurement of good-quality maternal and newborn health medicines.

Project description:BackgroundAntenatal corticosteroids (ACS) for women at high risk of preterm birth is an effective intervention to reduce neonatal mortality among preterm babies delivered in hospital settings, but has not been widely used in low-middle resource settings. We sought to assess the rates of ACS use at all levels of health care in low and middle income countries (LMIC).MethodsWe assessed rates of ACS in 7 sites in 6 LMIC participating in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development's Global Network for Women and Children's Health Research Antenatal Corticosteroids Trial (ACT), a cluster-randomized trial to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of a multifaceted intervention designed to increase the use of ACS. We conducted this analysis using data from the control clusters, which did not receive any components of the intervention and intended to follow usual care. We included women who delivered an infant with a birth weight <5th percentile, a proxy for preterm birth, and were enrolled in the Maternal Newborn Health (MNH) Registry between October 2011 and March 2014 in all clusters. A survey of the site investigators regarding existing policies on ACS in health facilities and for health workers in the community was part of pre-trial activities.ResultsOverall, of 51,523 women delivered in control clusters across all sites, the percentage of <5th percentile babies ranged from 3.5 % in Kenya to 10.7 % in Pakistan. There was variation among the sites in the use of ACS at all hospitals and among those hospitals having cesarean section and neonatal care capabilities (bag and mask and oxygen or mechanical ventilation). Rates of ACS use for <5th percentile babies in all hospitals ranged from 3.8 % in the Kenya sites to 44.5 % in the Argentina site, and in hospitals with cesarean section and neonatal care capabilities from 0 % in Zambia to 43.5 % in Argentina. ACS were rarely used in clinic or home deliveries at any site. Guidelines for ACS use at all levels of the health system were available for most of the sites.ConclusionOur study reports an overall low utilization of ACS among mothers of <5th percentile infants in hospital and clinic deliveries in LMIC.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov ( NCT01084096 ).