Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 231

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Doppler ultrasound for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies

Alfirevic, Zarko, Neilson, James P·1996·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Abnormal waveforms from Doppler ultrasound may indicate poor fetal prognosis. It is also possible that Doppler ultrasound could encourage inappropriate early delivery. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of Doppler ultrasound in high risk pregnancies on obstetric care and fetal outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of Doppler ultrasound for the investigation of umbilical artery waveforms in high risk pregnancies compared to no Doppler ultrasound. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted by both reviewers. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies involving nearly 7000 women were included. The trials were generally of good quality. Compared to no Doppler ultrasound, Doppler ultrasound in high risk pregnancy (especially those complicated by hypertension or presumed impaired fetal growth) was associated with a trend to a reduction in perinatal deaths (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 1.01). The use of Doppler ultrasound was also associated with fewer inductions of labour (odds ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.93) and fewer admissions to hospital (odds ratio 0.56, 95% 0.43 to 0.72), without reports of adverse effects. No difference was found for fetal distress in labour (odds ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.13) or caesarean delivery (odds ratio 0.94, 95% 0.82 to 1.06). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The use of Doppler ultrasound in high risk pregnancies appears to improve a number of obstetric care outcomes and appears promising in helping to reducing perinatal deaths.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd000073This paper is marked retracted.

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 231

Metadata

Authors
Alfirevic, Z., & Neilson, J. P.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
1996-10-21
Issue
2
Pages
CD000073-CD000073
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2111430949
Cited by
231
References
0
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Status
Retracted
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Doppler ultrasound for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd000073
The paper
Alfirevic, Z., & Neilson, J. P. (1996). Doppler ultrasound for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000073

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.