Cited by 40Maternal and fetal healthcareMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsCongenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery

Velamentous cord insertion: results from a rapid review of incidence, risk factors, adverse outcomes and screening

Open access
Buchanan-Hughes, Amy, Bobrowska, Anna, Visintin, Cristina, Attilakos, George, Marshall, John·2020·Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Background: Velamentous cord insertion (VCI) is an umbilical cord attachment to the membranes surrounding the placenta instead of the central mass. VCI is strongly associated with vasa praevia (VP), where umbilical vessels lie in close proximity to the internal cervical os. VP leaves the vessels vulnerable to rupture, which can lead to fatal fetal exsanguination. Screening for VP using second-trimester transabdominal sonography (TAS) to detect VCI has been proposed. We conducted a rapid review investigating the quality, quantity and direction of evidence available on the epidemiology, screening test accuracy and post-screening management pathways for VCI. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 5 July 2016 and again on 11 October 2019, using general search terms for VP and VCI. Only peer-reviewed articles reporting on the epidemiology of VCI, the accuracy of the screening test and/or downstream management pathways for VCI pregnancies were included. Quality and risk of bias of each included study were assessed using pre-specified tools. Results: Forty-one relevant publications were identified; all but one were based on non-UK pregnancy cohorts, and most included relatively few VCI cases. The estimated incidence of VCI was 0.4–11% in singleton pregnancies, with higher incidence in twin pregnancies (1.6–40%). VCI incidence was also increased among pregnancies with one or more other risk factors, including in vitro fertilisation pregnancies or nulliparity. VCI incidence among women without any known risk factors was unclear. VCI was associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, most notably pre-term birth and emergency caesarean section in singleton pregnancies, and perinatal mortality in twins; however, associations varied across studies and the increased risk was typically low or moderate compared with pregnancies without VCI. In studies on limited numbers of cases, screening for VCI using TAS had good overall accuracy, driven by high specificity. No studies on post-screening management of VCI were identified. Conclusions: Literature on VCI epidemiology and outcomes is limited and low-quality. The accuracy of second-trimester TAS and the benefits and harms of screening cannot be determined without prospective studies in large cohorts. Modelling studies may indicate the feasibility and value of studying the epidemiology of VCI and the potential impact of detecting VCI as part of a population screening programme for VP.

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 · 10.1186/s13643-020-01355-0

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • There is ongoing debate regarding whether routine screening for velamentous cord insertion and/or vasa previa should be performed at the mid-trimester scan; the evidence is of limited quality and fails to take into account the consequences of over-diagnosing such anomalies.

    “There is, however, ongoing debate regarding whether routine screening for velamentous cord insertion and/or vasa previa should be performed at the mid-trimester scan; the evidence is of limited quality and fails to take into account the consequences of over-diagnosing such anomalies 47,88 .”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buchanan-Hughes, A., Bobrowska, A., Visintin, C., Attilakos, G., & Marshall, J.
Affiliations
  • Costello Medical Consulting (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Public Health England (GB)
Corresponding author
Marshall, John
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Published
2020-06-23
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
147-147
ISSN
2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3038013202
Cited by
40
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Public Health England
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
Keywords
velamentous cord insertion, vasa previa, umbilical cord insertion, prenatal screening, incidence, risk factors, preterm birth, emergency cesarean section, perinatal mortality, twin pregnancy, in vitro fertilization, nulliparity
MeSH terms
Cesarean Section, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Incidence, Vasa Previa

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