Skip to main content
PMC home page
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 1993 Jul 3;307(6895):13–17. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6895.13

Does routine ultrasound scanning improve outcome in pregnancy? Meta-analysis of various outcome measures.

H C Bucher 1, J G Schmidt 1
PMCID: PMC1678458  PMID: 8343659

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--To evaluate the effectiveness of routine ultrasound scanning in pregnancy by a meta-analysis of various outcome measures. DESIGN--Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of routine ultrasound scanning on perinatal mortality and morbidity. Live birth rate (that is, live births per pregnancy) is included as a measure of pregnancy outcome in addition to the conventional perinatal mortality. SUBJECTS--15,935 pregnancies (7992 in which routine ultrasound scanning was used and 7943 controls with selective scanning) from four randomised controlled trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Perinatal mortality, live birth rate, rate of miscarriage, Apgar score < 7 at 1 minute, and number of induced labours. RESULTS--The live birth rate was identical in both screening and control groups (odds ratio = 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.12) although the perinatal mortality was significantly lower in the group who had routine ultrasonography (0.64, 0.43 to 0.97). Differences in perinatal morbidity between the two groups as measured by the proportion of newborn babies with Apgar score < 7 at 1 minute were not significant (1.05; 0.93 to 1.19). CONCLUSION--Routine ultrasound scanning does not improve the outcome of pregnancy in terms of an increased number of live births or of reduced perinatal morbidity. Routine ultrasound scanning may be effective and useful as a screening for malformation. Its use for this purpose, however, should be made explicit and take into account the risk of false positive diagnosis in addition to ethical issues.

Full text

PDF
13

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bakketeig L. S., Eik-Nes S. H., Jacobsen G., Ulstein M. K., Brodtkorb C. J., Balstad P., Eriksen B. C., Jörgensen N. P. Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonographic screening in pregnancy. Lancet. 1984 Jul 28;2(8396):207–211. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(84)90492-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennett M. J., Little G., Dewhurst J., Chamberlain G. Predictive value of ultrasound measurement in early pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1982 May;89(5):338–341. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1982.tb05074.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blondel B., Ringa V., Breart G. The use of ultrasound examinations, intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring and beta-mimetic drugs in France. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989 Jan;96(1):44–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb01575.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Campbell S., Warsof S. L., Little D., Cooper D. J. Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol. 1985 May;65(5):613–620. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chitty L. S., Hunt G. H., Moore J., Lobb M. O. Effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in detecting fetal structural abnormalities in a low risk population. BMJ. 1991 Nov 9;303(6811):1165–1169. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6811.1165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Eik-Nes S. H., Okland O., Aure J. C., Ulstein M. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1984 Jun 16;1(8390):1347–1347. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(84)91834-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ewigman B., LeFevre M., Hesser J. A randomized trial of routine prenatal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Aug;76(2):189–194. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Grennert L., Persson P. H., Gennser G. Benefits of ultrasonic screening of a pregnant population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1978;78:5–14. doi: 10.3109/00016347809162696. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hannah M. E., Hannah W. J., Hellmann J., Hewson S., Milner R., Willan A. Induction of labor as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in post-term pregnancy. A randomized controlled trial. The Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group. N Engl J Med. 1992 Jun 11;326(24):1587–1592. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199206113262402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Larsen T., Larsen J. F., Petersen S., Greisen G. Detection of small-for-gestational-age fetuses by ultrasound screening in a high risk population: a randomized controlled study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992 Jun;99(6):469–474. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb13783.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Laurin J., Persson P. H. The effect of bedrest in hospital on fetal outcome in pregnancies complicated by intra-uterine growth retardation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987;66(5):407–411. doi: 10.3109/00016348709022043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Luck C. A. Value of routine ultrasound scanning at 19 weeks: a four year study of 8849 deliveries. BMJ. 1992 Jun 6;304(6840):1474–1478. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6840.1474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Mack J. E. The enemy system. Lancet. 1988 Aug 13;2(8607):385–387. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)92848-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Mintz M. C., Landon M. B. Sonographic diagnosis of fetal growth disorders. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Mar;31(1):44–52. doi: 10.1097/00003081-198803000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Orme M. L. Antidepressants and heart disease. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Jul 7;289(6436):1–2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.289.6436.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Persson P. H., Kullander S. Long-term experience of general ultrasound screening in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):942–947. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(83)90970-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ringa V., Blondel B., Breart G. Ultrasound in obstetrics: do the published evaluative studies justify its routine use? Int J Epidemiol. 1989 Sep;18(3):489–497. doi: 10.1093/ije/18.3.489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Saari-Kemppainen A., Karjalainen O., Ylöstalo P., Heinonen O. P. Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancy. The Helsinki Ultrasound Trial. Lancet. 1990 Aug 18;336(8712):387–391. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)91941-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Saunders N., Paterson C. Effect of gestational age on obstetric performance: when is "term" over? Lancet. 1991 Nov 9;338(8776):1190–1192. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)92044-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Secher N. J., Kern Hansen P., Lenstrup C., Sindberg Eriksen P., Morsing G. A randomized study of fetal abdominal diameter and fetal weight estimation for detection of light-for-gestation infants in low-risk pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987 Feb;94(2):105–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1987.tb02334.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Simpson G. F., Creasy R. K. Obstetric management of the growth retarded baby. Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1984 Aug;11(2):481–497. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Thompson S. G., Pocock S. J. Can meta-analyses be trusted? Lancet. 1991 Nov 2;338(8775):1127–1130. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)91975-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES