Predictive value of ultrasound measurement in early pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. A randomized trial of routine prenatal ultrasound. Routine second-trimester ultrasound for low risk pregnancies in a South African community. Routine obstetric ultrasound examinations in South Africa: cost and effect on perinatal outcome--a prospective randomised controlled trial. Routine ultrasonography in utero and subsequent handedness and neurological development. Effects of routine one-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Is an ultrasound assessment of gestational age at the first antenatal visit of value? A randomised clinical trial. Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancy. The Helsinki Ultrasound Trial. Does a first trimester dating scan using crown rump length measurement reduce the rate of induction of labour for prolonged pregnancy? An uncompleted randomised controlled trial of 463 women. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. RADIUS Study Group.
Early fetal biparietal diameter (BPD) measurements were obtained with ultrasound in 1062 women attending for antenatal care; a random half had the results withheld from the obstetricians. Of the 1026 women who were sure of the dates of their last normal menstrual period, 829 (81%) were found to have appropriate biparietal diameter measurements, in 3% the pregnancy was more than 2 weeks further advanced and in 14% more than 2 weeks less than calculated. In 30% of the women whose results were intended to be withheld, the code had to be broken because of clinical concern. There were no differences in fetal outcome (birthweight centile, Apgar score at 1 min and perinatal mortality) in the women whose BPD results were known compared with those whose results were withheld from the obstetrician. But a significantly larger number of labours were induced for suspected growth retardation when the gestational age was known. Nine hundred fifteen of 2171 pregnant patients had no indication for ultrasound at their first prenatal visit and were randomly assigned to receive either a single routine screening ultrasound or usual prenatal care. The estimated date of confinement was altered in 24.9% of routine-ultrasound patients and in 11.6% of usual-care patients through ultrasound examinations obtained for a subsequent clinical indication. Of these, 8.3% of routine-ultrasound and 5.2% of usual-care patients had gestational age errors of 2 weeks or more. There were no differences between the groups in inductions for post-dates pregnancy (7.0 versus 7.5%; P = .87), total inductions (22.6 versus 24.9%; P = .61), or adverse perinatal outcomes (6.7 versus 8.3%; P = .63). Both sets of twins were detected in the screened group. In the usual-care group, five of seven pairs of twins (71%) were diagnosed by 24 weeks' gestation. There was no benefit found from routine ultrasound as performed in this study. nan To compare routine midtrimester with selective obstetric ultrasonography concerning the Health Service cost and the effect on perinatal outcome.
                A randomised controlled trial.
                Urban area served by Tygerberg Hospital, a tertiary referral centre in South Africa.
                Pregnant patients without risk factors for congenital anomalies referred for ultrasonography between 18 and 24 weeks of gestation.
                Between 18 and 24 weeks, a level one ultrasound examination was performed on study patients only. Except for the routine scan, both groups received the same antenatal care and could be referred later for additional scans as judged by their clinicians.
                Overall adverse perinatal outcome and use of antenatal and neonatal services.
                The groups did not differ significantly in their use of antenatal and neonatal services except for a greater number of ultrasound scans in the study group. More suspected postdate pregnancies occurred in control patients, as well as more amniocenteses for confirmation of lung maturity. More babies of low birthweight were born in the study group. The incidence of overall or major adverse perinatal outcome was comparable. Routine ultrasonography was accompanied by a considerable increase in costs.
                Selective use of obstetric ultrasonography did not increase the use of antenatal and neonatal services. Not routinely performing ultrasonography has led to considerable Health Service savings without increasing the risk for adverse perinatal outcome. It saved 75% of selected patients a referral to an ultrasound unit. Specific problems related to inaccurate gestational age determination need to be addressed. To examine any associations between routine ultrasonography in utero and subsequent brain development as indicated by non-right handedness at primary school age and neurological development during childhood.
                Follow up of 8 and 9 year old children of women who took part in two randomised, controlled trials of routine ultrasonography during pregnancy.
                Clinics of 60 general practitioners in Norway during 1979-81. Maternal and child health centres.
                2161 (89%) of 2428 eligible singletons were followed up, partly through a questionnaire to their parents and partly through information from health centres.
                The dominant hand of the child was assessed by 10 questions. Deficits in attention, motor control, and perception were evaluated by five questions. Impaired neurological development during the first year of life was assessed by an abbreviated version of the Denver developmental screening test.
                The odds of non-right handedness were higher among children who had been screened in utero than among control children (odds ratio 1.32; 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.71). No clear differences were found between the groups with regard to deficits in attention, motor control, and perception or neurological development during the first year of life.
                Our data suggest a possible association between routine ultrasonography in utero and subsequent non-right handedness, whereas no association with impaired neurological development was found. As the question on non-right handedness was one of six initial hypotheses, the observed results may be due to chance. None the less, the results suggest that the hypothesis may have some merit and should be tested in future studies. 4997 of 7354 pregnant women had no clinical indication for an elective ultrasound examination at 12 weeks' gestation. 2482 of these women were randomly selected for ultrasound screening at 15 weeks and the remainder received the same standard antenatal care without the scan. Labour was less often induced among screened women both for all reasons (5.9% vs 9.1%, p less than 0.0001) and for suspected post-term pregnancy (1.7% vs 3.7%, p less than 0.0001). Earlier detection of twins had no effect on neonatal outcome. Among babies born to screened women, fewer were of birthweight less than 2500 g (59 vs 95, p = 0.005) and mean birthweight was 42 g higher (p 0.008). For babies born to screened women who smoked it was 75 g higher (p 0.012) and for those of non-smokers 26 g (not significant). The reason for the differences in mean birthweight could be that screened women reduced smoking in response to watching their fetus on the scan. nan To assess the efficacy of an ultrasound scan at the first antenatal visit.
                Randomised clinical trial.
                Women's and Children's tertiary level hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
                Six hundred and forty-eight women attending for their first antenatal visit at less than 17 weeks of gestation who had no previous ultrasound scan in the pregnancy, who were expected to give birth at the hospital, and for whom there was no indication for an ultrasound at their first visit.
                Eligible consenting women were enrolled by telephone randomisation into either the ultrasound at first visit group, who had an ultrasound at the time of their first antenatal visit, or the control group in whom no ultrasound assessment was done at their first antenatal visit. Both groups of women completed a questionnaire at the end of the first visit on their feelings towards the pregnancy and anxiety levels. Data were collected on details of any ultrasound assessments, including the 18 to 20 weeks morphology scan, and pregnancy outcome. All primary analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis.
                The number of women who needed adjustment in dates of 10 days or more on the basis of their 18 to 20 weeks ultrasound morphology scan, who were booked for their morphology scan at sub-optimal gestations, who had a repeat of their maternal serum screening test, or who felt worried about their pregnancy at the end of the first antenatal visit.
                Fewer women (9%) in the ultrasound at first visit group needed adjustment of their expected date of delivery as a result of the 18 to 20 week ultrasound, compared with 18% of women in the control group (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34-0.79; P = 0.002). The number of women who had the 18 to 20 week ultrasound assessment timed suboptimally was similar to that in the control group (16% vs. 21%), as was the number of women who had a repeat blood sample taken for maternal serum screening (6% vs. 6%). Fewer women in the ultrasound at first visit group reported feeling worried about their pregnancy (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.99; P = 0.04) or not feeling relaxed about their pregnancy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.96; P = 0.02), compared with women in the control group.
                A routine ultrasound assessment for dating offered to women at the first antenatal visit provides more precise estimates of gestational age and reduces the need to adjust the estimate of the date of delivery in mid-gestation. Women who had an ultrasound at the first visit reported more positive feelings about their pregnancy, compared with women in the control group at that time. During a 19-month period, 95% of all pregnant women in the greater Helsinki area, Finland, entered a study to compare one-stage ultrasonography screening with selective screening according to antenatal hospital use, obstetric procedures, and fetal outcomes. Of 9310 women who entered the trial, 4691 were randomly allocated to ultrasound screening between the 16th and 20th gestational weeks and 4619 to follow-up only. Screened and control groups otherwise had the same antenatal care, which included ultrasonography according to usual practice. Screened women made fewer visits to the antenatal outpatient clinic than did women in the control group (2.3 vs 2.6). There were no differences in the number of labour inductions or mean birthweights in the two groups. Perinatal mortality was significantly lower in the screened than in the control group (4.6/1000 vs 9.0/1000); this 49.2% reduction was mainly due to improved early detection of major malformations which led to induced abortion. All twin pregnancies were detected before the 21st gestational week in the screening group compared with 76.3% in the control group; perinatal mortality in the small series of twins was 27.8/1000 vs 65.8/1000, respectively. To evaluate the effect of a first trimester ultrasound dating scan on the rate of induction of labour for prolonged pregnancy.
                Randomised controlled trial to include 400 women in each arm of the trial.
                Participating general practices and a district general teaching hospital.
                Women attending their general practitioner in the first trimester to confirm pregnancy, in whom a first trimester ultrasound scan was not indicated.
                Women randomised to the study group (scan group) underwent an ultrasound dating scan between 8 and 12 weeks, measuring crown-rump length. The estimated date of delivery (EDD) was changed if there was a discrepancy of more than 5 days from the gestation, calculated from the last menstrual period (LMP). For the remaining women (no-scan group), gestation was determined using the LMP.
                The rate of induction of labour for prolonged pregnancy.
                Due to circumstances beyond the researchers' control, recruitment was abandoned when 463 women had been enrolled. The EDD was adjusted in 13 (5.7%) women in the scan group and in 2 (0.9%) in the no-scan group. There was no difference in the rate of induction for prolonged pregnancy between the scan (19 [8.2%]) and the no-scan (17 [7.4%]) groups (relative risk 1.10; 95% CI 0.59-2.07).
                Acknowledging the reduced numbers recruited for study, it is concluded that there is no evidence that a first trimester ultrasound dating scan reduces the rate of induction of labour for prolonged pregnancy and may result in a more expensive healthcare strategy. Many clinicians advocate routine ultrasound screening during pregnancy to detect congenital anomalies, multiple-gestation pregnancies, fetal growth disorders, placental abnormalities, and errors in the estimation of gestational age. However, it is not known whether the detection of these conditions through screening leads to interventions that improve perinatal outcome.
                We conducted a randomized trial involving 15,151 pregnant women at low risk for perinatal problems to determine whether ultrasound screening decreased the frequency of adverse perinatal outcomes. The women randomly assigned to the ultrasound-screening group underwent one sonographic examination at 15 to 22 weeks of gestation and another at 31 to 35 weeks. The women in the control group underwent ultrasonography only for medical indications, as identified by their physicians. Adverse perinatal outcome was defined as fetal death, neonatal death, or neonatal morbidity such as intraventricular hemorrhage.
                The mean numbers of sonograms obtained per woman in the ultrasound-screening and control groups were 2.2 and 0.6, respectively. The rate of adverse perinatal outcome was 5.0 percent among the infants of the women in the ultrasound-screening group and 4.9 percent among the infants of the women in the control group (relative risk, 1.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 1.2; P = 0.85). The rates of preterm delivery and the distribution of birth weights were nearly identical in the two groups. The ultrasonographic detection of congenital anomalies had no effect on perinatal outcome. There were no significant differences between the groups in perinatal outcome in the subgroups of women with post-date pregnancies, multiple-gestation pregnancies, or infants who were small for gestational age.
                Screening ultrasonography did not improve perinatal outcome as compared with the selective use of ultrasonography on the basis of clinician judgment.
Early ultrasound improves the early detection of multiple pregnancies and improved gestational dating may result in fewer inductions for post maturity. Caution needs to be exercised in interpreting the results of aspects of this review in view of the fact that there is considerable variability in both the timing and the number of scans women received.