Cited by 70Pregnancy and preeclampsia studiesNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Clinical utility of third-trimester uterine artery Doppler in the prediction of brain hemodynamic deterioration and adverse perinatal outcome in small-for-gestational-age fetuses

Open access
Cruz‐Martinez, R., Savchev, S., Cruz‐Lemini, M., Mendez, A., Gratacos, E., Figueras, F.·2015·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

Objective: To assess the clinical value of third‐trimester uterine artery (UtA) Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of hemodynamic deterioration and adverse perinatal outcome in term small‐for‐gestational‐age (SGA) fetuses. Methods: UtA Doppler parameters, cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) and fetal middle cerebral artery (MCA) pulsatility index (PI) were evaluated weekly, starting from the time of SGA diagnosis until 24 h before induction of labor, in a cohort of 327 SGA fetuses with normal umbilical artery PI (< 95 th centile), delivered at > 37 weeks' gestation. Differences in the sequence of CPR and MCA‐PI changes < 5 th centile, between the group with normal UtA Doppler indices at diagnosis and those with abnormal UtA indices, were analyzed by survival analysis. In addition, the use of UtA Doppler value, alone or in combination with a brain Doppler scan before delivery, to predict the risk of Cesarean section, Cesarean section for non‐reassuring fetal status (NRFS), neonatal acidosis and neonatal hospitalization was evaluated by logistic regression analysis, adjusted for gestational age at birth and birth‐weight percentile. Results: Abnormal UtA Doppler at diagnosis of SGA was associated with a higher risk of developing abnormal brain Doppler indices before induction of labor than in those with a normal UtA at diagnosis (62.7% vs 34.6%, respectively; P < 0.01). Compared to those with normal UtA Doppler indices, those with abnormal UtA Doppler findings were associated with a higher risk of intrapartum Cesarean section (52.2% vs 37.3%, respectively; P = 0.03), Cesarean section for NRFS (35.8% vs 23.1%, respectively; P = 0.03), neonatal acidosis (10.4% vs 7.7%, respectively; P = 0.47) and neonatal hospitalization (23.9% vs 16.5%, respectively; P = 0.16). Logistic regression analysis indicated that UtA Doppler findings were not significantly associated with adverse perinatal outcome independent of brain Doppler findings. Conclusion: UtA Doppler indices predict adverse perinatal outcome, but do not help to improve the predictive value of brain Doppler indices. However, at the time of SGA diagnosis they identify the subgroup of fetuses at highest risk of progression to abnormal brain Doppler findings. Copyright © 2014 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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/uog.14706

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Although FGR detection rates >90% have been reported in first- and second-trimester prediction models combining maternal factors, biochemical markers, and uterine artery Doppler, lack of external validation or demonstration of improved pregnancy outcomes limits their clinical applicability.

    “Although FGR detection rates >90% have been reported in firstand second-trimester prediction models that combine maternal factors, biochemical markers, and uterine artery Doppler, lack of external validation or demonstration of improved pregnancy outcomes limits their clinical applicability.145,150,151”

    From Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #52: Diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction (2020) · cites this paper as [151]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 39 · Cited by 70

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [2]2. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetus, Investigation and Manage- ment (Green-top Guideline No. 31). RCOG Press: London, 2002.
  2. [4]4. ACOG committee opinion. Utility of antepartum umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry in intrauterine growth restriction. Number 188, October 1997 (replaces no. 116, November 1992). Committee on Obstetric Practice. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1997; 59: 269-270.
  3. [12]12. Copyright © 2014 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45: 273-278. 14690705, 2015, 3, Downloaded from https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/uog.14706, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Authors
Cruz‐Martinez, R., Savchev, S., Cruz‐Lemini, M., Mendez, A., Gratacos, E., & Figueras, F.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Biomedical Network Research on Rare Diseases (ES)
  • Department of Maternal–Fetal Medicine, Institute Clínic of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology (ICGON), Hospital Clinic‐IDIBAPS University of Barcelona and Centre for Biomedical Research on Rare Diseases (CIBER‐ER) Barcelona Spain
  • Department of Fetal Medicine and Surgery Children's and Women's Specialty Hospital of Queretaro Querétaro Mexico
Corresponding author
Cruz‐Martinez, R.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-01-27
Volume
45
Issue
3
Pages
273-278
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W2135356337
Cited by
70
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Neonatal and fetal brain pathology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
uterine artery Doppler, small-for-gestational-age fetuses, third trimester, cerebroplacental ratio, middle cerebral artery pulsatility index, intrapartum cesarean section, fetal distress, neonatal acidosis, neonatal hospitalization, perinatal complications, fetal growth restriction
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Cesarean Section, Female, Fetal Growth Retardation, Hemodynamics, Humans, Infant, Small for Gestational Age, Labor, Induced, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Pregnancy Trimester, Third, Prospective Studies, Pulsatile Flow, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Ultrasonography, Doppler, Middle Cerebral Artery, Uterine Artery

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