MPH Program, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Michigan, USA.
Department of Paediatrics, RCSI & UCD Malaysia Campus (formerly Penang Medical College), George Town, Malaysia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 9;3(3):CD012553. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012553.pub2.
There is a need to standardize monitoring in obstetric research of twin pregnancies. Identification of birth weight discordance (BWD), defined as a difference in the birth weights of twins, is a well-documented phenomenon in twin pregnancies. Ultrasound for the diagnosis of BWD informs complex decision making including whether to intervene medically (via laser photo coagulation) or deliver the twins to avoid fetal morbidities or even death. The question is, how accurate is this measurement?
To determine the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of ultrasound estimated fetal weight discordance (EFWD) of 20% and 25% using different estimated biometric ultrasound measurements compared with the actual BWD as the reference standard in twin pregnancies.
The search for this review was performed on 15 March 2019. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), seven other databases, conference proceedings, reference lists and contacted experts. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters to maximize sensitivity.
We selected cohort-type studies with delayed verification that evaluated the accuracy of biometric measurements at ultrasound scanning of twin pregnancies that had been proposed for the diagnosis of estimated BWD, compared to BWD measurements after birth as a reference standard. In addition, we only selected studies that considered twin pregnancies and applied a reference standard for EFWD for the target condition of BWD.
We screened all titles generated by electronic database searches. Two review authors independently assessed the abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. We assessed the identified full papers for eligibility, and extracted data to create 2 × 2 tables. Two review authors independently performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. We excluded studies that did not report data in sufficient detail to construct 2 × 2 tables, and where this information was not available from the primary investigators. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
We included 39 eligible studies with a median study sample size of 140. In terms of risk of bias, there were many unclear statements regarding patient selection, index test and use of proper reference standard. Twenty-one studies (53%) were of methodological concern due to flow and timing. In terms of applicability, most studies were of low concern. Ultrasound for diagnosis of BWD in twin pregnancies at 20% cut-off Twenty-two studies provided data for a BWD of 20% and the summary estimate of sensitivity was 0.51 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.60), and the summary estimate of specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.93) (8005 twin pregnancies; very low-certainty evidence). Ultrasound for diagnosis of BWD in twin pregnancies at 25% cut-off Eighteen studies provided data using a BWD discordance of 25%. The summary estimate of sensitivity was 0.46 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.66), and the summary estimate of specificity was 0.93 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.96) (6471 twin pregnancies; very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses were possible for both BWD of 20% and 25%. The diagnostic accuracy did not differ substantially between estimation by abdominal circumference and femur length but femur length had a trend towards higher sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses were not possible by sex of twins, chorionicity or gestational age due to insufficient data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-certainty evidence suggests that EFWD identified by ultrasound has low sensitivity but good specificity in detecting BWD in twin pregnancies. There is uncertain diagnostic value of EFWD; this review suggests there is insufficient evidence to support this index as the sole measure for clinical decision making to evaluate the prognosis of twins with growth discordance. The diagnostic accuracy of other measures including amniotic fluid index and umbilical artery Doppler resistive indices in combination with ultrasound for clinical intervention requires evaluation. Future well-designed studies could also evaluate the impact of chorionicity, sex and gestational age in the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for EFWD.
在双胎妊娠的产科研究中,需要标准化监测。双胎出生体重差异(BWD)的识别,定义为双胞胎出生体重的差异,是双胎妊娠中一个有充分记录的现象。超声诊断 BWD 为包括是否通过激光光凝进行医学干预或分娩以避免胎儿发病率甚至死亡在内的复杂决策提供了信息。问题是,这种测量方法的准确性如何?
确定超声估计胎儿体重差异(EFWD)为 20%和 25%时的诊断准确性(灵敏度和特异性),并将其与实际 BWD 作为参考标准进行比较,以评估不同的超声估计生物测量值在双胎妊娠中的应用。
本次综述的检索工作于 2019 年 3 月 15 日进行。我们检索了 CENTRAL、MEDLINE(Ovid)、Embase(Ovid)、另外 7 个数据库、会议论文集、参考文献列表,并联系了专家。电子检索没有语言或日期限制,也没有方法学过滤器来最大限度地提高灵敏度。
我们选择了延迟验证的队列研究,这些研究评估了超声扫描双胎妊娠中生物测量值的准确性,这些值被提议用于诊断估计的 BWD,并与出生后的 BWD 测量值作为参考标准进行比较。此外,我们只选择了考虑双胎妊娠并应用 EFWD 参考标准的研究。
我们筛选了所有电子数据库检索生成的标题。两位综述作者独立评估了所有潜在相关研究的摘要。我们评估了确定的全文论文的合格性,并创建了 2×2 表格。两位综述作者独立使用 QUADAS-2 工具进行质量评估。我们排除了未报告足够详细数据以构建 2×2 表格的研究,并且这些信息无法从主要研究人员处获得。我们使用 GRADE 方法评估证据的确定性。
我们纳入了 39 项符合条件的研究,中位研究样本量为 140 例。就偏倚风险而言,许多研究对患者选择、指标测试和适当参考标准的使用存在不明确的陈述。由于流程和时间问题,21 项研究(53%)存在方法学问题。就适用性而言,大多数研究的关注度较低。
超声诊断双胎妊娠 BWD 20% 截止值:22 项研究提供了 BWD 为 20%的数据,敏感性的汇总估计值为 0.51(95%CI 0.42 至 0.60),特异性的汇总估计值为 0.91(95%CI 0.89 至 0.93)(8005 例双胎妊娠;极低确定性证据)。
超声诊断双胎妊娠 BWD 25% 截止值:18 项研究使用 BWD 差异 25%的数据。敏感性的汇总估计值为 0.46(95%CI 0.26 至 0.66),特异性的汇总估计值为 0.93(95%CI 0.89 至 0.96)(6471 例双胎妊娠;极低确定性证据)。
可以对 BWD 20%和 25%进行亚组分析。通过腹部周长和股骨长度估计的诊断准确性没有显著差异,但股骨长度有更高的敏感性和特异性趋势。由于数据不足,无法按双胞胎的性别、绒毛膜性或胎龄进行亚组分析。
极低确定性证据表明,超声检测的 EFWD 在检测双胎妊娠中 BWD 时具有低敏感性但特异性好。EFWD 的诊断价值不确定;本综述表明,没有足够的证据支持将其作为评估生长差异的双胞胎预后的唯一指标。需要评估其他措施的诊断准确性,包括羊水指数和脐动脉阻力指数,以及结合超声进行临床干预。未来精心设计的研究还可以评估绒毛膜性、性别和胎龄对超声检测 EFWD 诊断准确性的影响。