-
PloS One 2020Existing systematic reviews of Rh immunoprophylaxis include only data from randomized controlled trials, have dated searches, and some do not report on all domains of...
BACKGROUND
Existing systematic reviews of Rh immunoprophylaxis include only data from randomized controlled trials, have dated searches, and some do not report on all domains of risk of bias or evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Our objective was to perform an updated review, by including new trials, any comparative observational studies, and assessing the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to November 26, 2019. Relevant websites and bibliographies of systematic reviews and guidelines were searched for studies published before 2000. Outcomes of interest were sensitization and adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane tool and ROBINS-I. The certainty of the evidence was performed using the GRADE framework.
RESULTS
Thirteen randomized trials and eight comparative cohort studies were identified, evaluating 12 comparisons. Although there is some evidence of beneficial treatment effects (e.g., at 6-months postpartum, fewer women who received RhIg at delivery compared to no RhIg became sensitized [70 fewer sensitized women per 1,000 (95%CI: 67 to 71 fewer); I2 = 73%]), due to very low certainty of the evidence, the magnitude of the treatment effect may be overestimated. The certainty of the evidence was very low for most outcomes often due to high risk of bias (e.g., randomization method, allocation concealment, selective reporting) and imprecision (i.e., few events and small sample sizes). There is limited evidence on prophylaxis for invasive fetal procedures (e.g. amniocentesis) in the comparative literature, and few studies reported adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Serious risk of bias and low to very low certainty of the evidence is found in existing RCTs and comparative observational studies addressing optimal effectiveness of Rh immunoprophylaxis. Guideline development committees should exercise caution when assessing the strength of the recommendations that inform and influence clinical practice in this area.
Topics: Female; GRADE Approach; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Postnatal Care; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rh Isoimmunization; Rh-Hr Blood-Group System
PubMed: 32913362
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238844 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Mar 2015The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) compared with karyotyping for the detection of numerical and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) compared with karyotyping for the detection of numerical and structural chromosomal alterations in prenatal diagnosis.
STUDY DESIGN
A metaanalysis was performed using searches of PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, Google Scholar, gray literature, and reference manuals. No language restriction was imposed. We included cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies published from January 1980 through March 2014 in the analysis. Studies of pregnant women who received chorionic villus biopsies, amniocentesis, or cordocentesis and then underwent CGH and karyotype analysis were included. Two independent reviewers assessed each study by title, abstract, and full text before its inclusion in the analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS2, and a third reviewer resolved any disagreement. Conclusions were obtained through tests (sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios) for the presence of numerical and structural chromosomal abnormalities. The reference used for these calculations was the presence of any abnormalities in either of the 2 tests (karyotype or CGH), although it should be noted that in most cases, the karyotyping test had a lower yield compared with CGH. Statistical analysis was performed in RevMan 5.2 and the OpenMeta[Analyst] program.
RESULTS
In all, 137 articles were found, and 6 were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. Five were included in the metaanalysis. According to the QUADAS2 analysis of methodology quality, there is an unclear risk for selection bias and reference and standard tests. In the other elements (flow, time, and applicability conditions), a low risk of bias was found. CGH findings were as follows: sensitivity 0.939 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.838-0.979), I(2) = 82%; specificity 0.999 (95% CI, 0.998-1.000), I(2) = 0%; negative likelihood ratio 0.050 (95% CI, 0.015-0.173), I(2) = 0%; and positive likelihood ratio 1346.123 (95% CI, 389-4649), I(2) = 0%. Karyotype findings were as follows: sensitivity 0.626 (95% CI, 0.408-0.802), I(2) = 93%; specificity 0.999 (95% CI, 0.998-1.000), I(2) = 0%; negative likelihood ratio 0.351 (95% CI, 0.101-1.220), I(2) = 0%; and positive likelihood ratio 841 (95% CI, 226-3128), I(2) = 10%.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review provides evidence of the relative advantage of using CGH in the prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal and structural abnormalities over karyotyping, demonstrating significantly higher sensitivity with similar specificity.
Topics: Chromosome Aberrations; Chromosome Disorders; Comparative Genomic Hybridization; Female; Genetic Testing; Humans; Karyotyping; Pregnancy; Prenatal Diagnosis; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 25305409
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.10.011 -
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in... Nov 2023To analyse amniotic fluid volume (AFV), specifically oligohydramnios or polyhydramnios, and associated pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in twin gestations through...
OBJECTIVE
To analyse amniotic fluid volume (AFV), specifically oligohydramnios or polyhydramnios, and associated pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in twin gestations through systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We utilised systematic review methodology to identify items within published and grey literature resources. Prospective and retrospective studies with a control group were included. Inclusion criteria were as follows: studies in English, twin pregnancy in which AFVs and associated pregnancy and/or neonatal outcomes were evaluated. Exclusion criteria included the presence of an anomalous fetus, chromosome abnormality, monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy complicated by twin-twin transfusion syndrome or twin-reversed arterial perfusion, twin gestations undergoing therapeutic interventions ( fetoscopic laser photocoagulation and serial amniocentesis) and monochorionic monoamniotic twin pregnancy.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 1068 abstracts, only four met criteria for inclusion and analysis. The pooled data (two studies per outcome) revealed no significant difference in rate of pre-term delivery (OR: 2.94; CI: 0.20-43.81), pre-term delivery less than 32 weeks (OR: 1.97; CI: 0.43-9.12), umbilical cord pH < 7 (OR: 2.66; CI: 0.22-32.51), rate of stillbirth (OR: 4.13; CI: 0.40-42.70), neonatal death (OR: 1.48; CI: 0.05-43.94), rate of NICU admission (OR: 1.38; CI: 0.61-3.11) or rate of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants (OR: 1.39; CI: 0.33-5.94).
CONCLUSION
Based on the pooled data (two studies per outcome), there was no difference in the fate of pre-term delivery, umbilical cord pH < 7, stillbirth, neonatal death or SGA infants. What is disturbing is the lack of studies (1946-2020) that analysed the association between AFV and pregnancy outcomes in twin pregnancies.
PubMed: 38098617
DOI: 10.1002/ajum.12361 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2021The primary methods for prenatal diagnosis of Clubfoot are ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). An ultrasound is performed between the 1st trimester and... (Review)
Review
The primary methods for prenatal diagnosis of Clubfoot are ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). An ultrasound is performed between the 1st trimester and the 28th week of pregnancy and it is reported to be used as a diagnostic method alone or in combination with MRI. So far, an international consensus on the most effective screening method has not been reached. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to establish the most effective and reliable exam for prenatal diagnosis of Clubfoot. The literature search was conducted using a PIOS-approach from May 2021 to June 2021. Studies reporting cases of prenatal diagnosis of Clubfoot made through US and MRI conducted from January 2010 to June 2021 were included in the study and reviewed by 2 authors. The 23 selected studies included 2318 patients. A total of 11 of the studies included details on the accuracy, while the rest were used to obtain information about the primary methodology utilized. In all the selected studies, US was used as the primary diagnostic instrument. Thirteen of the studies used the US exclusively, while three used MRI in addition to US and seven performed karyotyping after US diagnosis. The US has been shown to be the instrument of choice for the prenatal diagnosis of Clubfoot. International guidelines for an ultrasonography classification of congenital clubfoot are required to reduce the inter-variability accuracy of this procedure.
PubMed: 34943470
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11122235 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Fetal assessment following preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM) may result in earlier delivery due to earlier detection of fetal compromise. However, early... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fetal assessment following preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM) may result in earlier delivery due to earlier detection of fetal compromise. However, early delivery may not always be in the fetal or maternal interest, and the effectiveness of different fetal assessment methods in improving neonatal and maternal outcomes is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To study the effectiveness of fetal assessment methods for improving neonatal and maternal outcomes in PPROM. Examples of fetal assessment methods that would be eligible for inclusion in this review include fetal cardiotocography, fetal movement counting and Doppler ultrasound.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing any fetal assessment methods, or comparing one fetal assessment method to no assessment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion into the review. The same two review authors independently assessed trial quality and independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies involving 275 women (data reported for 271) with PPROM at up to 34 weeks' gestation. All three studies were conducted in the United States. Each study investigated different methods of fetal assessment. One study compared weekly endovaginal ultrasound scans with no assessment (n = 93), one compared amniocentesis with no assessment (n = 47), and one compared daily nonstress testing with daily modified biophysical profiling (n = 135). We were unable to perform a meta-analysis, but were able to report data from individual studies.There was no convincing evidence of increased risk of neonatal death in the group receiving endovaginal ultrasound scans compared with the group receiving no assessment (risk ratio (RR) 7.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 137.54; one study, 92 women), or in the group receiving amniocentesis compared with the group receiving no amniocentesis (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.00; one study, 44 women). For both these interventions, we inferred that there were no fetal deaths in the intervention or control groups. The study comparing daily nonstress testing with daily modified biophysical profiling did not report fetal or neonatal death. Primary outcomes of maternal death and serious maternal morbidity were not reported in any study. Overall, there were few statistically significant differences in outcomes between the comparisons.The overall quality of evidence is poor, because participant blinding was not possible for any study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of fetal assessment methods for improving neonatal and maternal outcomes in women with PPROM to draw firm conclusions. The overall quality of evidence that does exist is poor.Further high-quality randomised controlled trials are required to guide clinical practice.
Topics: Amniocentesis; Female; Fetal Membranes, Premature Rupture; Fetal Monitoring; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ultrasonography, Prenatal
PubMed: 25279580
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010209.pub2 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Dec 2023Congenital knee dislocation (CKD) is a rare condition, affecting 1 in 100 000 newborns. Its prenatal diagnosis is challenging and not well described in the literature,... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Congenital knee dislocation (CKD) is a rare condition, affecting 1 in 100 000 newborns. Its prenatal diagnosis is challenging and not well described in the literature, especially when it appears isolated and not as part of a complex malformation or syndromic pattern. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of the available literature on the prenatal diagnosis and postnatal outcome of CKD and to summarize the current evidence on this topic.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature on the prenatal diagnosis of CKD was performed in PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE. A predefined combination of specific keywords was used, focusing on intrauterine manifestations, diagnostic methods, prenatal behavior, postnatal treatment and neonatal outcome as well as long-term outcome in terms of ambulation, motion and joint stability. The quality of studies was assessed using the National Institutes of Health tool for quality assessment of case series. A summary of results was carried out providing proportions and rates of diagnostic and prognostic features associated with this rare condition.
RESULTS
In total, 20 cases were retrieved for analysis, of which 19 were obtained from the identified eligible studies (n = 16) and one was an unpublished case from our center. The median gestational age at prenatal diagnosis, which was made using ultrasound in most cases, was 20 weeks (range, 14-38 weeks). Bilaterality was observed in 11/20 (55%) cases. The condition was isolated in 7/20 (35%) cases and associated with other anomalies in 13/20 (65%) cases. An association was observed with oligohydramnios (4/20 (20%)), and an invasive procedure was performed in 13/20 (65%) cases, including 11 cases with an invasive procedure performed for diagnostic purposes. Genetic testing was normal in all isolated cases for which information was available (4/7), while a genetic syndrome was present in 10/13 (77%) non-isolated cases (Larsen, Noonan, Grebe, Desbuquois or Escobar syndrome). There were seven terminations of pregnancy, of which six were performed in cases with associated anomalies and one in an isolated case, 11 cases of postnatal survival, one case of intrauterine death and one of neonatal death. The fetal and neonatal deaths occurred in cases with associated anomalies or abnormal genetic findings. Postnatal treatment was mostly conservative, with only two reports (18% of the 11 surviving neonates) of surgical intervention, both in cases with associated anomalies. Postnatal follow-up was up to 1 year in most cases, and motor outlook appeared normal in all isolated cases.
CONCLUSIONS
CKD is a rare fetal anomaly with a prenatal diagnosis achievable from the early second trimester, for which a favorable outcome can be expected when no associated anomalies are present. Prenatal diagnosis should include detailed ultrasound assessment and amniocentesis for extensive genetic studies, particularly in non-isolated cases. Early postnatal treatment achieves success in most cases without surgical intervention and leads to a normal motor outlook. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Fetus; Genetic Testing; Prenatal Diagnosis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Retrospective Studies; Ultrasonography, Prenatal
PubMed: 37289939
DOI: 10.1002/uog.26283 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology May 2020To examine the relationship between prenatal diagnostics (ultrasound examination and amniotic fluid Zika virus testing) and postnatal congenital Zika syndrome...
OBJECTIVE
To examine the relationship between prenatal diagnostics (ultrasound examination and amniotic fluid Zika virus testing) and postnatal congenital Zika syndrome abnormalities.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic searches were performed in 27 databases, including ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to July 1, 2019, for articles with the keywords "Zika," "prenatal," "ultrasound," and "amniocentesis."
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
A total of 3,049 unique records were identified. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full texts for relevance; 84 articles met the inclusion criteria. These articles describe 402 mother-fetus or mother-neonate dyads; 385 were included in the review of prenatal ultrasound examination, and 56 in the review of amniocentesis (39 in both).
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Among 195 fetuses with congenital Zika syndrome findings on prenatal ultrasound examination, postnatal congenital Zika syndrome abnormalities were reported for 153 (78%; 95% CI 7-84%). High proportions of microcephaly (76%; 95% CI 69-82%) and brain abnormalities (78%; 95% CI 69-86%) were confirmed postnatally. Among 190 fetuses without congenital Zika syndrome findings on prenatal ultrasound examination, 17% (95% CI 12-24%) had congenital Zika syndrome abnormalities identified postnatally. Structural congenital Zika syndrome abnormalities were identified postnatally in approximately equal proportions among dyads with and without Zika virus RNA detected in an amniotic fluid specimen (68% and 67%; 95% CI 52-82% and 95% CI 38-88%). In six pregnancies, Zika virus RNA was detected in amniotic fluid but not in a subsequent amniocentesis specimen.
CONCLUSION
Prenatal ultrasound examination frequently detects structural findings associated with Zika virus infection; however, not all abnormalities are detected, and some may represent transient findings. As with other congenital infections, prenatal detection may vary with timing of infection, timing of ultrasound examination, technical expertise, and severity of abnormalities. The detection of Zika virus RNA in amniotic fluid in the included studies did not predict the risk for congenital Zika syndrome abnormalities in these cases, and clearance of Zika virus RNA from amniotic fluid appears possible after maternal infection. Diagnostic testing for Zika virus infection remains a shared decision between patients and clinicians, and more data are needed to define clinical predictors that will inform these decisions.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42018080959.
Topics: Adult; Amniocentesis; Female; Fetal Diseases; Humans; Pregnancy; Ultrasonography, Prenatal; Young Adult; Zika Virus; Zika Virus Infection
PubMed: 32282593
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003829 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Identification of the causes of stillbirth is critical to the primary prevention of stillbirth and to the provision of optimal care in subsequent pregnancies. A wide... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Identification of the causes of stillbirth is critical to the primary prevention of stillbirth and to the provision of optimal care in subsequent pregnancies. A wide variety of investigations are available, but there is currently no consensus on the optimal approach. Given their cost and potential to add further emotional burden to parents, there is a need to systematically assess the effect of these interventions on outcomes for parents, including psychosocial outcomes, economic costs, and on rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of different tests, protocols or guidelines for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth on outcomes for parents, including psychosocial outcomes, economic costs, and rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 May 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. We planned to include studies published as abstract only, provided there was sufficient information to allow us to assess study eligibility. We planned to exclude cross-over trials.Participants included parents (including mothers, fathers, and partners) who had experienced a stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or greater.This review focused on interventions for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth. Such interventions are likely to be diverse, but could include:* review of maternal and family history, and current pregnancy and birth history;* clinical history of present illness;* maternal investigations (such as ultrasound, amniocentesis, antibody screening, etc.);* examination of the stillborn baby (including full autopsy, partial autopsy or noninvasive components, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerised tomography (CT) scanning, and radiography);* umbilical cord examination;* placental examination including histopathology (microscopic examination of placental tissue); and* verbal autopsy (interviews with care providers and support people to ascertain causes, without examination of the baby).We planned to include trials assessing any test, protocol or guideline (or combinations of tests/protocols/guidelines) for investigating the causes of stillbirth, compared with the absence of a test, protocol or guideline, or usual care (further details are presented in the Background, see Description of the intervention).We also planned to include trials comparing any test, protocol or guideline (or combinations of tests/protocols/guidelines) for investigating the causes of stillbirth with another, for example, the use of a limited investigation protocol compared with a comprehensive investigation protocol.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility independently.
MAIN RESULTS
We excluded five studies that were not RCTs. There were no eligible trials for inclusion in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently a lack of RCT evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth. Seeking to determine the causes of stillbirth is an essential component of quality maternity care, but it remains unclear what impact these interventions have on the psychosocial outcomes of parents and families, the rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth, and the care and management of subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth. Due to the absence of trials, this review is unable to inform clinical practice regarding the investigation of stillbirths, and the specific investigations that would determine the causes.Future RCTs addressing this research question would be beneficial, but the settings in which the trials take place, and their design, need to be given careful consideration. Trials need to be conducted with the utmost care and consideration for the needs, concerns, and values of parents and families. Assessment of longer-term psychosocial variables, economic costs to health services, and effects on subsequent pregnancy care and outcomes should also be considered in any future trials.
Topics: Cause of Death; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Stillbirth
PubMed: 29709055
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012504.pub2 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Nov 2020To assess the rate of fetal loss following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) in twin pregnancy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the rate of fetal loss following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) in twin pregnancy.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies reporting procedure-related complications following amniocentesis or CVS in twin pregnancy. The primary outcome was the rate of procedure-related fetal loss. The secondary outcomes were fetal loss occurring before 24 weeks of gestation and fetal loss occurring within 4 weeks after the procedure. Head-to-head meta-analyses were used to compare directly each outcome, between women undergoing amniocentesis and those not undergoing amniocentesis and between women undergoing CVS and those not undergoing CVS, and to compute pooled risk differences (RD) between women exposed and those not exposed to each invasive procedure. Additionally, meta-analyses of proportions were used to estimate the pooled rates of each of the three outcomes in women undergoing amniocentesis or CVS and in controls.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies (3419 twin pregnancies undergoing and 2517 not undergoing an invasive procedure) were included. Head-to-head meta-analyses comparing directly twin pregnancies undergoing and those not undergoing amniocentesis showed a higher risk for overall fetal loss in those undergoing amniocentesis (odds ratio (OR), 1.46 (P = 0.04); RD, 0.013 (P = 0.04)), while there was no difference in the risk of either fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation (OR, 1.59 (P = 0.06); RD, 0.010 (P = 0.11)) or fetal loss within 4 weeks after the procedure (OR, 1.38 (P = 0.3); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)). Overall, the pooled rate of fetal loss was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.4-3.6%) in twin pregnancies undergoing amniocentesis compared with 2.4% (95% CI, 0.9-4.6%) in those not undergoing amniocentesis. Head-to-head meta-analyses directly comparing twin pregnancies undergoing and those not undergoing CVS showed no significant difference in either overall fetal loss (OR, 1.61 (P = 0.5); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)) or fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation (OR, 1.61 (P = 0.5); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)). Overall, the pooled rate of fetal loss was 2.0% (95% CI, 0.0-6.5%) in twin pregnancies undergoing CVS compared with 1.8% (95% CI, 0.3-4.2%) in those not undergoing CVS.
CONCLUSION
The risk of fetal loss following amniocentesis and CVS in twins is lower than reported previously and the rate of fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation, or within 4 weeks after the procedure, did not differ from the background risk in twin pregnancy not undergoing invasive prenatal testing. These data can guide prenatal counseling for twin pregnancies undergoing invasive procedures. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Adult; Amniocentesis; Chorionic Villi Sampling; Female; Fetal Death; Humans; Odds Ratio; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Twin; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32632979
DOI: 10.1002/uog.22143 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three, rather than two copies of chromosome 21; or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome. It... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three, rather than two copies of chromosome 21; or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability and also leads to numerous metabolic and structural problems. It can be life-threatening, or lead to considerable ill health, although some individuals have only mild problems and can lead relatively normal lives. Having a baby with Down's syndrome is likely to have a significant impact on family life.Noninvasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing. However, no test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to estimate and compare the accuracy of first trimester serum markers for the detection of Down's syndrome in the antenatal period, both as individual markers and as combinations of markers. Accuracy is described by the proportion of fetuses with Down's syndrome detected by screening before birth (sensitivity or detection rate) and the proportion of women with a low risk (normal) screening test result who subsequently had a baby unaffected by Down's syndrome (specificity).
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted a sensitive and comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), Embase (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 25 August 2011), MEDION (25 August 2011), The Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine (25 August 2011), The National Research Register (Archived 2007), Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (25 August 2011). We did forward citation searching ISI citation indices, Google Scholar and PubMed 'related articles'. We did not apply a diagnostic test search filter. We also searched reference lists and published review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies in which all women from a given population had one or more index test(s) compared to a reference standard (either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection). Both consecutive series and diagnostic case-control study designs were included. Randomised trials where individuals were randomised to different screening strategies and all verified using a reference standard were also eligible for inclusion. Studies in which test strategies were compared head-to-head either in the same women, or between randomised groups were identified for inclusion in separate comparisons of test strategies. We excluded studies if they included less than five Down's syndrome cases, or more than 20% of participants were not followed up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data as test positive or test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods or random-effects logistic regression methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy as appropriate. Analyses of studies allowing direct and indirect comparisons between tests were undertaken.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 56 studies (reported in 68 publications) involving 204,759 pregnancies (including 2113 with Down's syndrome). Studies were generally of good quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high-risk pregnancies. We evaluated 78 test combinations formed from combinations of 18 different tests, with or without maternal age; ADAM12 (a disintegrin and metalloprotease), AFP (alpha-fetoprotein), inhibin, PAPP-A (pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, ITA (invasive trophoblast antigen), free βhCG (beta human chorionic gonadotrophin), PlGF (placental growth factor), SP1 (Schwangerschafts protein 1), total hCG, progesterone, uE3 (unconjugated oestriol), GHBP (growth hormone binding protein), PGH (placental growth hormone), hyperglycosylated hCG, ProMBP (proform of eosinophil major basic protein), hPL (human placental lactogen), (free αhCG, and free ßhCG to AFP ratio. Direct comparisons between two or more tests were made in 27 studies.Meta-analysis of the nine best performing or frequently evaluated test combinations showed that a test strategy involving maternal age and a double marker combination of PAPP-A and free ßhCG significantly outperformed the individual markers (with or without maternal age) detecting about seven out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate (FPR). Limited evidence suggested that marker combinations involving PAPP-A may be more sensitive than those without PAPP-A.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tests involving two markers in combination with maternal age, specifically PAPP-A, free βhCG and maternal age are significantly better than those involving single markers with and without age. They detect seven out of 10 Down's affected pregnancies for a fixed 5% FPR. The addition of further markers (triple tests) has not been shown to be statistically superior; the studies included are small with limited power to detect a difference.The screening blood tests themselves have no adverse effects for the woman, over and above the risks of a routine blood test. However some women who have a 'high risk' screening test result, and are given amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) have a risk of miscarrying a baby unaffected by Down's. Parents will need to weigh up this risk when deciding whether or not to have an amniocentesis or CVS following a 'high risk' screening test result.
Topics: ADAM Proteins; ADAM12 Protein; Biomarkers; Chorionic Gonadotropin, beta Subunit, Human; Down Syndrome; Female; Humans; Maternal Age; Membrane Proteins; Predictive Value of Tests; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Pregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein-A; Prenatal Diagnosis; alpha-Fetoproteins
PubMed: 26617074
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011975