MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380200546 · doi:10.1016/j.xagr.2023.100241

Prognostic accuracy of antenatal doppler ultrasound measures in predicting adverse perinatal outcomes for pregnancies complicated by diabetes: a systematic review

2023· review· en· W4380200546 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ben M. Rane, Bunmi S. Malau‐Aduli, Faith Alele, Cecelia O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueAJOG Global Reports · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJames Cook UniversityCMC Microsystems
KeywordsMedicineGestational diabetesUmbilical arteryObstetricsFetal distressNeonatal intensive care unitGestational ageRespiratory distressPregnancyApgar scoreDiabetes mellitusMiddle cerebral arteryPediatricsInternal medicineGestationFetusSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.012
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAJOG Global ReportsSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207