25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The impact of ultrasound-based antenatal screening strategies to detect vasa praevia in the United Kingdom: An exploratory study using decision analytic modelling methods

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The objective of this exploratory modelling study was to estimate the effects of second-trimester, ultrasound-based antenatal detection strategies for vasa praevia (VP) in a hypothetical cohort of pregnant women. For this, a decision-analytic tree model was developed covering four discrete detection pathways/strategies: no screening; screening targeted at women undergoing in-vitro fertilisation (IVF); screening targeted at women with low-lying placentas (LLP); screening targeted at women with velamentous cord insertion (VCI) or a bilobed or succenturiate (BL/S) placenta. Main outcome measures were the number of referrals to transvaginal sonography (TVS), diagnosed and undiagnosed cases of VP, overdetected cases of VCI, and VP-associated perinatal mortality. The greatest number of referrals to TVS occurred in the LLP-based (2,083) and VCI-based screening (1,319) pathways. These two pathways also led to the highest proportions of pregnancies diagnosed with VP (VCI-based screening: 552 [78.9% of all pregnancies]; LLP-based: 371 [53.5%]) and the lowest proportions of VP leading to perinatal death (VCI-based screening: 100 [14.2%]; LLP-based: 196 [28.0%]). In contrast, the IVF-based pathway resulted in 66 TVS referrals, 50 VP diagnoses (7.1% of all VP pregnancies), and 368 (52.6%) VP-associated perinatal deaths which was comparable to the no screening pathway (380 [54.3%]). The VCI-based pathway resulted in the greatest detection of VCI (14,238 [99.1%]), followed by the IVF-based pathway (443 [3.1%]); no VCI detection occurred in the LLP-based or no screening pathways. In conclusion, the model results suggest that a targeted LLP-based approach could detect a substantial proportion of VP cases, while avoiding VCI overdetection and requiring minimal changes to current clinical practice. High-quality data is required to explore the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this and other detection strategies further. This is necessary to provide a robust basis for future discussion about routine screening for VP.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

          In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence.

              Recently there has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Key features of a systematic review include the creation of an a priori protocol, clear inclusion criteria, a structured and systematic search process, critical appraisal of studies, and a formal process of data extraction followed by methods to synthesize, or combine, this data. Currently there exists no standard method for conducting critical appraisal of studies in systematic reviews of prevalence data.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                20 December 2022
                2022
                : 17
                : 12
                : e0279229
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Costello Medical, London, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Fetal Medicine Unit, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
                [3 ] Exeter Test Group, Institute of Health Research, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, St. Luke’s Campus, Exeter, United Kingdom
                [4 ] National Screening Committee, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom
                [5 ] National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [6 ] Fetal Medicine Unit, St George’s University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s University of London, London, United Kingdom
                [7 ] The Society and College of Radiographers, London, United Kingdom
                [8 ] UK National Screening Committee, London, United Kingdom
                Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: All authors have completed the ICJME uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work other than that described above; JM, CV, and AM are employees of the UK NSC secretariat which funded the submitted work; CH is a member of the UK NSC; BT and ORA are members of the Fetal, Maternal and Child Health Group (FMCH) of the UK NSC; GA is a Council member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a Steering Committee member of the UK Obstetric Surveillance System; BRF, JK and THC are, or were formerly, employed by Costello Medical which was commissioned for the model development and supportive work by the UK NSC; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. The above statement does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9040-1902
                Article
                PONE-D-21-26780
                10.1371/journal.pone.0279229
                9767376
                36538562
                c61253bf-9acf-410f-be6c-4059dd102f13
                © 2022 Ruban-Fell et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 18 August 2021
                : 2 December 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 4, Pages: 18
                Funding
                Funded by: UK National Screening Committee
                This study was funded by the UK NSC. The views and opinions expressed by the authors in this publication are not necessarily those of the UK NSC.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Maternal Health
                Pregnancy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Obstetrics and Gynecology
                Pregnancy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Diagnostic Radiology
                Ultrasound Imaging
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Imaging Techniques
                Diagnostic Radiology
                Ultrasound Imaging
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Radiology and Imaging
                Diagnostic Radiology
                Ultrasound Imaging
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Developmental Biology
                Embryology
                Placenta
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Reproductive System
                Placenta
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Reproductive System
                Placenta
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Developmental Biology
                Fertilization
                In Vitro Fertilization
                Engineering and Technology
                Management Engineering
                Decision Analysis
                Decision Trees
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Decision Analysis
                Decision Trees
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Economic Analysis
                Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Policy
                Screening Guidelines
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are included within the paper and supplementary information.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content82

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors437