Skip to main content
Download PDF

Association between transabdominal uterine artery Doppler and small-for-gestational-age: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 23, Article number: 659 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The association between uterine artery Doppler (UtA) measurements and small for gestational age (SGA) has not been quantitatively analyzed throughout the whole pregnancy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to comprehensively explore the association between UtA measurements and SGA in the first, second, and third trimesters.

Methods

Studies were searched from Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Weighted mean difference (WMD), odds ratio (OR), and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as the effect size. Heterogeneity of all effect sizes was tested and quantified using I2 statistics. Sensitivity analysis was conducted for all outcomes, and publication bias was evaluated using Begg’s test.

Results

A total of 41 studies were finally included in our meta-analysis. In the first trimester, mean PI was significantly higher in the SGA group than the non-SGA group (WMD: 0.31, 95%CI: 0.19–0.44). In the second trimester, odds of notch presence (OR: 2.54, 95%CI: 2.10–3.08), mean PI (WMD: 0.21, 95%CI: 0.12–0.30), and mean RI (WMD: 0.05, 95%CI: 0.05–0.06) were higher in the SGA group. Also, abnormal UtA measurements were associated with the increased odds of SGA (all P < 0.05). In the third trimester, PI z-score (WMD: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.33–0.91) and PI MoM (WMD: 0.08, 95%CI: 0.06–0.09) showed a significant increase in the SGA group. The odds of SGA were higher in the women with mean PI > 95% (OR: 6.03, 95%CI: 3.24–11.24).

Conclusions

Abnormal UtA measurements were associated with high odds of SGA, suggesting that UtA might be an adjunctive screening method for SGA in the whole pregnancy.

Peer Review reports

Background

Small for gestational age (SGA) refers to the fetal birth weight ≤ 10th percentile according to local standards [1]. Fetuses with late-onset SGA have a high risk of adverse perinatal outcomes, such as high rate of surgical delivery, low Apgar and arterial cord blood pH values, and high frequency of neonatal unit (NNU) admission [1]. Screening for SGA is a key element of prenatal care [2].

Uterine artery Doppler (UtA) has been used to assess the risk of SGA in pregnant women [3]. Studies on the association between UtA and the risk of SGA have been previously reported. He et al. have found that mean UtA-pulsatility index (UtA-PI) and UtA-resistance index (UtA-RI) were higher in the SGA fetuses compared to non-SGA fetuses [4]. Običan et al. have reported that abnormal UtA indices were significantly correlated with an increased risk of SGA [5]. Left uterine artery notching and PI > 95th percentile increased 1.76-fold and 1.83-fold risk of SGA, respectively [5]. However, several limitations existed in the separate original studies, including insufficient sample size or being limited to one region.

Meta-analysis is a powerful tool to combine results from two or more separate studies, which shows a good evidence strength and facilitates healthcare decision-making [6, 7]. A systematic review by Meler et al. have already reported the association between UtA and SGA, while the results are not quantitatively analyzed [8]. Cnossen et al. performed a meta-analysis to explore the predictive accuracy of UtA for SGA in the first and second trimesters, while they did not focus on the third trimester [9]. The persistent increase in the uterine artery impedance in the third trimesters increased the risk of SGA [8]. UtA examination can be conducted in transvaginal and transabdominal approaches, and transabdominal approach is recommended because most of the studies evaluating the UtA in the third trimester used a transabdominal approach [10]. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the previously published studies to comprehensively explore the association between transabdominal UtA measurements and the risk of SGA in the first, second, and third trimesters.

Methods

Literature search strategy

This meta-analysis was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline [11]. Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched by two researchers (RJZ and XPT) for relevant studies up to July 28, 2022. The search terms used were “Uterine Artery” OR “Arteries, Uterine” OR “Artery, Uterine” OR “Uterine Arteries” AND “Ultrasonography, Doppler” OR “Doppler Ultrasound” OR “Doppler Ultrasounds” OR “Ultrasound, Doppler” OR “Ultrasounds, Doppler” OR “Doppler Ultrasonography” OR “Doppler Ultrasound Imaging” OR “Doppler Ultrasound Imagings” OR “Imaging, Doppler Ultrasound” OR “Imagings, Doppler Ultrasound” OR “Ultrasound Imaging, Doppler” OR “Ultrasound Imagings, Doppler” OR “PI” OR “pulsatility index” OR “RI” OR “resistance index” OR “blood flow index” OR “diastolic notch” OR “blood flow score” OR “ratio of systolic and diastolic blood flow velocity” OR “the ratio of systolic peak value and end diastolic velocity of blood flow” OR “S/D” OR “systolic maximum flow velocity” OR “Systolic low velocity” OR “diastolic minimum flow velocity” OR “Diastolic flow velocity” AND “Infant, Small for Gestational Age” OR “Small for Gestational Age” OR “SGA” OR “Fetal Growth Retardation” OR “Intrauterine Growth Retardation” OR “Growth Retardation, Intrauterine” OR “Intrauterine Growth Restriction” OR “Fetal Growth Restriction”. We have registered this systematic review and meta-analysis with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023447101).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Only studies meeting the following criteria were included: (1) patients: women with single pregnancy; (2) intervention and control: abnormal UtA group vs. normal UtA group or SGA group vs. non-SGA group; (3) outcome: SGA; (4) study design: case–control studies and cohort studies.

The UtA parameters we observed in this study were mean UtA-PI, mean UtA-RI, multiple of median (MoM) values of UtA-PI (UtA-PI MoM), UtA-PI z-score, and notch presence. PI was calculated as (peak systolic velocity-end diastolic velocity)/average velocity, and RI was calculated as (peak systolic velocity-end diastolic velocity)/peak systolic velocity. Mean PI and RI were the average from the left and right uterine arteries [12]. Notch presence meant the unilateral or bilateral notch in the diastolic notch [13]. Abnormal UtA includes: the presence of diastolic notch, high RI (RI > 95%, RI > 75%, RI > 90%), or high PI (PI > 95%) [13,14,15,16]. SGA was defined as the fetal birth weight ≤ 10th percentile according to local standards [1].

The following exclusion criteria were adopted: (1) animal studies; (2) studies irrelevant to the topic (studies not on transabdominal UtA or SGA definition not conformed); (3) reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, protocols, conference abstracts, guidelines, and expert consensus; (4) not published in English.

Data extraction

Two researchers (RJZ and XPT) independently evaluated the data suitable for this meta-analysis, and extracted the following information: the first author, publication year, country, study design, group, sample size, age, body mass index (BMI), birth weight, gestational age, complications, smoking, and Doppler time. If conflicts existed, a third researcher (HEL) provided the consultation.

Methodological quality appraisal

The quality of case–control studies and cohort studies was assessed using Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) [17]. For case–control studies, three items (selection, comparability, and exposure) were assessed. For cohort studies, three items (selection, comparability, and outcome) were evaluated. The total score of this scale was 9 points, and study quality was regarded as poor (0–3 points), fair (4–6 points), and good (7–9 points).

Statistical analysis

Weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as the effect size for measurement data, and odds ratio (OR) with 95%CI was used as effect size for counting data. If relative risk (RR) was provided in the publications, RR was combined for analysis. Heterogeneity was tested for all effect sizes and quantified using the I2 statistics. If the heterogeneity statistic I2 ≥ 50%, random effect model was used for analysis; otherwise, fixed effect model was used for analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of a single study on the whole estimate by removing studies one by one. Publication bias was assessed using Begg’s test for the outcomes included in more than nine studies [18]. All statistical analysis was performed using Stata15.1 software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA), and P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Certainty of evidence

The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). The GRADE system categorized the certainty of the pooled estimate of effect as high, moderate, low, or very low according to the following criteria: study design, risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and other considerations. An evidence profile was produced to summarize the results using the GRADEpro GDT (https://gdt.gradepro.org/).

Results

Study selection and study characteristics

A total of 7,079 studies were identified from the above-mentioned databases. After removing 2,513 duplicates, 4,566 studies remained. After screening title and abstract, animal studies (n = 258), studies irrelevant to the topic (n = 3,234), and reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, protocols, conference abstracts, guidelines and expert consensus (n = 856) were eliminated. After screening the full texts, 179 studies were removed due to irrelevant to the topic (n = 153) or not published in English (n = 24). Finally, 41 studies were included in our meta-analysis (Fig. 1) [1, 4, 5, 12,13,14,15,16, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. Table 1 displays the characteristics of the included studies. There were 38 cohort studies and 3 case–control studies. According to the Newcastle Ottawa scale, 32 studies were assessed as good quality and 9 studies were assessed as fair quality (Supplementary table S1-S2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The flowchart of selecting studies

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Comparison of UtA measurements between SGA group and non-SGA group

In the first trimester, mean PI and PI z-score were significantly higher in the SGA group than in the non-SGA group (WMD: 0.31, 95%CI: 0.19–0.44; WMD: 0.30, 95%CI: 0.18–0.42) (Fig. 2A-B). There was no significant difference in mean RI between the SGA group and non-SGA group (WMD: 0.06, 95%CI: -0.04–0.16). A study by Arakaki et al. reported that RI z-score was significantly higher in the SGA group compared to non-SGA group [12]. In the second-trimester, we found that the risk of notch presence in the SGA group was higher than in the non-SGA group (OR: 2.54, 95%CI: 2.10–3.08) (Fig. 2C). Compared to non-SGA group, SGA group showed higher values of mean PI (WMD: 0.21, 95%CI: 0.12–0.30) (Fig. 2D) and mean RI (WMD: 0.05, 95%CI: 0.05–0.06) (Fig. 2E). Seravalli et al. reported that PI z-score of SGA group was higher than that of non-SGA group [46]. Espinoza et al. had reported the risk of PI > 95% and RI > 95% in SGA group was higher than in the non-SGA group [24]. In the third-trimester, PI z-score and PI MoM showed a significant increase in the SGA group compared with non-SGA group, with WMD value of 0.62 (95%CI: 0.33–0.91) (Fig. 2F) and 0.08 (95%CI: 0.06–0.09) (Fig. 2G), respectively. Rial-Crestelo et al. reported that SGA group showed a higher risk of PI > 95% compared to non-SGA group [41]. The results were summarized in Table 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plots regarding to mean PI (A) and PI Z-score (B) in the first trimester; notch presence (C), mean PI (D), and mean RI (E) in the second trimester; PI z-score (F) and PI MoM (G) in the third trimester

Full size image
Table 2 Comparison of UtA parameters between SGA groups and non-SGA groups
Full size table

Comparison of SGA incidence between abnormal UtA group and normal UtA group

In the first trimester, there was no significant association between SGA and RI > 75% (RR: 2.61, 95%CI: 0.68–10.08) or RI > 95% (RR: 1.55, 95%CI: 0.73–3.26). Dugoff et al. reported that the risk of SGA incidence was higher in RI > 90% group compared to RI ≤ 90% group [22]. In the second trimester, we found that the odds of SGA incidence were significantly higher in women with mean RI > 90% (OR: 2.14, 95%CI: 1.48–3.10) (Fig. 3A), mean PI > 95% (OR: 3.15, 95%CI: 1.94–5.12) (Fig. 3B), notch presence (OR: 8.83, 95%CI: 1.76–44.29) (Fig. 3C), and mean PI > 95% or notch presence (OR: 6.74, 95%CI: 3.44–13.18) (Fig. 3D). In the third trimester, women with mean PI > 95% had higher odds of SGA than women with mean PI ≤ 95% (OR: 6.03, 95%CI: 3.24–11.24) (Fig. 3E). Običan et al. have found that the risk of SGA was higher in case of mean PI > 95% or notch presence [5]. The results were shown in Table 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plots regarding to mean RI > 90% (A), mean PI > 95% (B) notch presence (C), and mean PI > 95% or notch presence (D) in the second trimester; mean PI > 95% (E) in the third trimester

Full size image
Table 3 Comparison of SGA incidence between abnormal and normal UtA groups
Full size table

Sensitivity analysis and publication bias

Sensitivity analysis showed that no study displayed an important effect on the final pooled UtA measurements and SGA incidence (Tables 1 and 2). There was no evidence of publication bias in the reporting of notch presence in the second-trimester across studies (Z = 0.36, P = 0.974).

Certainty of evidence

We used GRADE to assess the level of evidence. The results showed very low level of evidence for all outcomes (Supplementary table S3).

Discussion

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we explored the association between transabdominal UtA and SGA in the first, second, and third trimesters. The results showed that UtA measurements in the SGA group were significantly higher than the non-SGA group during the whole pregnancy. Also, SGA group had a higher odds of notch presence than the non-SGA group. In addition, we found that abnormal UtA was associated with the higher odds of SGA compared to normal UtA in the second and third trimesters.

Transabdominal UtA is a noninvasive test of the uteroplacental circulation, and has been applied to predict the risk of SGA in the clinical practice [4, 5, 44]. PI and RI are common observation indices in the UtA [52]. UtA-PI reflects total resistance distal to the measurement point, and UtA-RI reflects the vascular resistance at the measurement point [52]. A study showed a stable decrease in UtA-PI values until the late stages of pregnancy [53], whereas Cavoretto et al. found that UtA-PI showed a progressive non-linear decrease throughout the pregnancy by using fractional polynomial [54]. In this meta-analysis, we observed higher levels of UtA-PI and UtA-RI in women with SGA compared to those without SGA during the whole pregnancy. Previous studies have reported the similar findings [13, 31]. Borna et al. performed a study to identify patients at the risk of SGA using UtA, and they observed that mean UtA-PI in women with SGA newborns was significantly higher than those without SGA newborns [13]. Similarly, Maged et al. showed that UtA-RI was significantly higher in women who developed SGA compared to controls [31]. Also, we found that the odds of SGA were higher in the abnormal UtA group compared to normal UtA in the second and third trimesters. This finding was consisted with the studies by Običan et al. and Groom et al. [5, 15] Običan et al. suggested that the risk of SGA was significantly higher when PI > 95% [5]. Groom et al. indicated that the incidence of SGA was higher in women with UtA-RI > 90% than those with normal UtA-RI in the second trimester [15]. Evidence showed that trophoblastic invasion may be the reason for the increase of uterine vascular impedance; subsequently, changes in the uteroplacental circulation was detected by UtA [55, 56].

Diastolic notch is the characteristic of vessels with resistance, and depends on the compliance of vessel wall [57]. Dugoff et al. reported that 34.2% of 1067 American pregnant women had diastolic notches in the uterine artery; however, there was no significant association between diastolic notch and SGA [22]. He et al. also reported no significant association between notch and SGA although they found notching in the SGA fetuses was 40% higher than in the non-SGA fetuses [4]. One potential reason for this is that diastolic notch is dichotomous rather than numeric variables, which might introduce misclassification bias [4]. In this meta-analysis, we found a significant association between the notch presence and SGA and that notch presence was significantly associated with the increased odds of SGA. The similar finding was reported in former studies [5, 13, 35]. Borna et al. found that the incidence of SGA in women with notch was significantly greater than women without notch in ultrasonography [13]. In the study by Mitsui et al., a higher incidence of SGA was found in pregnant women with notch than those without (29.2% vs. 7.7%) [35]. This was consistent with the finding from the study of Običan et al. that UtA notch was significantly associated with SGA [5].

This meta-analysis explored the association between transabdominal UtA measurements and SGA in the first, second, and third trimesters, and found that abnormal UtA measurements were significantly associated with the high odds of SGA in the whole pregnancy. However, there are some limitations in this meta-analysis. First, judgement of normality or abnormality and classification of centiles in UtA measurements relies upon different curves and charts for uterine arteries, which may affect the reliability of the pooled results. In the future, a uniform judgement for abnormality needs to be explored. Second, there is heterogeneity in some results. Pregnancy complications (such as gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes), maternal smoking, and history of SGA may be the sources of heterogeneity. However, we were unable to perform the subgroup analysis to explore the sources of heterogeneity because the above factors could not be analyzed based on the included studies. Third, SGA is defined as fetal birth weight ≤ 10th percentile of the standard weight of the fetus at the same gestational age. In included studies, standard weight varies from region to region, which may cause some bias on the results. Fourth, the method of conception of the included pregnancies is likely heterogeneous. UtA-PI values are significantly different in pregnancies after different conception method [58]. Fifth, due to the limitation of the included studies, we failed to explore the influence of the changes of UtA measurements on SGA in different pregnancy periods.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our meta-analysis found a significant association between abnormal UtA measurements and increased odds of SGA in the whole pregnancy, indicating that UtA might be an adjunctive screening method for SGA in the whole pregnancy.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

SGA:

Small for gestational age

NNU:

Neonatal unit

UtA:

Uterine artery Doppler

PI:

Pulsatility index

RI:

Resistance index

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

BMI:

Body mass index

MoM:

Multiple of median

WMD:

Weighted mean difference

OR:

Odds ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

RR:

Relative risk

References

  1. Lobmaier SM, Graupner O, Ortiz JU, Haller B, Ried C, Wildner N, et al. Perinatal outcome and its prediction using longitudinal feto-maternal doppler follow-up in late onset small for gestational age fetuses-a prospective cohort study. Ultraschall Med. 2021;44(2):e108–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gaccioli F, Aye I, Sovio U, Charnock-Jones DS, Smith GCS. Screening for fetal growth restriction using fetal biometry combined with maternal biomarkers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:S725–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Parry S, Sciscione A, Haas DM, Grobman WA, Iams JD, Mercer BM, et al. Role of early second-trimester uterine artery Doppler screening to predict small-for-gestational-age babies in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:e1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  4. He B, Hu C, Zhou Y. First-trimester screening for fetal growth restriction using Doppler color flow analysis of the uterine artery and serum PAPP-A levels in unselected pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021;34:3857–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Običan SG, Odibo L, Tuuli MG, Rodriguez A, Odibo AO. Third trimester uterine artery Doppler indices as predictors of preeclampsia and neonatal small for gestational age. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33:3484–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Leeflang MM, Steingart KR, Scholten RJ, Davenport C. Chapter 12: Drawing conclusions. Draft version (4 October 2022) for inclusion in: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM, Takwoingi Y, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 2. London: Cochrane.

  7. Macaskill P, Takwoingi Y, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C. Chapter 9: Understanding meta-analysis. Draft version (4 October 2022) for inclusion in: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM, Takwoingi Y, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 2. London: Cochrane.

  8. Meler E, Martínez J, Boada D, Mazarico E, Figueras F. Doppler studies of placental function. Placenta. 2021;108:91–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cnossen JS, Morris RK, ter Riet G, Mol BW, van der Post JA, Coomarasamy A, et al. Use of uterine artery Doppler ultrasonography to predict pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction: a systematic review and bivariable meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2008;178(6):701–11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Duncan JR, Schenone CV, Običan SG. Third trimester uterine artery Doppler for prediction of adverse perinatal outcomes. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2022;34(5):292–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Arakaki T, Hasegawa J, Nakamura M, Takita H, Hamada S, Oba T, et al. First-trimester measurements of the three-dimensional ultrasound placental volume and uterine artery Doppler in early- and late-onset fetal growth restriction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33:564–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Borna S, Nasrolahi S, Khansari S. The study of predictive value of uterine artery doppler in incidence of preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restrictions in pregnant women. Int J Women Heal Rep. 2019;7:354–9.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Carter EB, Goetzinger K, Tuuli MG, Odibo L, Cahill AG, Macones GA, et al. Evaluating the optimal definition of abnormal first-trimester uterine artery doppler parameters to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34:1265–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Groom KM, North RA, Stone PR, Chan EH, Taylor RS, Dekker GA, et al. Patterns of change in uterine artery Doppler studies between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation and pregnancy outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:332–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ventura W, De Paco MC, Prieto-Sanchez MT, Macizo MI, Pertegal M, Nieto A, et al. Uterine and umbilical artery Doppler at 28 weeks for predicting adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with abnormal uterine artery Doppler findings in the early second trimester. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35:294–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2011.

  18. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Arrue M, García M, Rodriguez-Bengoa MT, Landa JM, Urbieta L, Maiztegui M, et al. Do low-risk nulliparous women with abnormal uterine artery Doppler in the third trimester have poorer perinatal outcomes? A longitudinal prospective study on uterine artery Doppler in low-risk nulliparous women and correlation with pregnancy outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30:877–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ciobanu A, Rouvali A, Syngelaki A, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Prediction of small for gestational age neonates: screening by maternal factors, fetal biometry, and biomarkers at 35-37 weeks’ gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220:e1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Drouin O, Boutin A, Paquette K, Gasse C, Guerby P, Demers S, et al. First-trimester uterine artery doppler for the prediction of sga at birth: the great obstetrical syndromes study. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018;40:1592–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dugoff L, Lynch AM, Cioffi-Ragan D, Hobbins JC, Schultz LK, Malone FD, et al. First trimester uterine artery Doppler abnormalities predict subsequent intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1208–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. El-Hamedi A, Shillito J, Simpson NA, Walker JJ. A prospective analysis of the role of uterine artery Doppler waveform notching in the assessment of at-risk pregnancies. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2005;24:137–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Espinoza J, Kusanovic JP, Bahado-Singh R, Gervasi MT, Romero R, Lee W, et al. Should bilateral uterine artery notching be used in the risk assessment for preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age, and gestational hypertension? J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29:1103–15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ghi T, Contro E, Youssef A, Giorgetta F, Farina A, Pilu G, et al. Persistence of increased uterine artery resistance in the third trimester and pregnancy outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36:577–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. González-González NL, González-Dávila E, González Marrero L, Padrón E, Conde JR, Plasencia W. Value of placental volume and vascular flow indices as predictors of intrauterine growth retardation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;212:13–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hafner E, Metzenbauer M, Höfinger D, Stonek F, Schuchter K, Waldhör T, et al. Comparison between three-dimensional placental volume at 12 weeks and uterine artery impedance/notching at 22 weeks in screening for pregnancy-induced hypertension, pre-eclampsia and fetal growth restriction in a low-risk population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27:652–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hershkovitz R, de Swiet M, Kingdom J. Mid-trimester placentation assessment in high-risk pregnancies using maternal serum screening and uterine artery Doppler. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2005;24:273–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kienast C, Moya W, Rodriguez O, Jijón A, Geipel A. Predictive value of angiogenic factors, clinical risk factors and uterine artery Doppler for pre-eclampsia and fetal growth restriction in second and third trimester pregnancies in an Ecuadorian population. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29:537–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Konchak PS, Bernstein IM, Capeless EL. Uterine artery Doppler velocimetry in the detection of adverse obstetric outcomes in women with unexplained elevated maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein levels. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173:1115–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Maged AM, Saad H, Meshaal H, Salah E, Abdelaziz S, Omran E, et al. Maternal serum homocysteine and uterine artery Doppler as predictors of preeclampsia and poor placentation. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296:475–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Maroni E, Youssef A, Arcangeli T, Nanni M, De Musso F, Contro E, et al. Increased uterine artery pulsatility index at 34 weeks and outcome of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:395–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. McCowan LM, Roberts CT, Dekker GA, Taylor RS, Chan EH, Kenny LC, et al. Risk factors for small-for-gestational-age infants by customised birthweight centiles: data from an international prospective cohort study. BJOG. 2010;117:1599–607.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Miranda J, Rodriguez-Lopez M, Triunfo S, Sairanen M, Kouru H, Parra-Saavedra M, et al. Prediction of fetal growth restriction using estimated fetal weight vs a combined screening model in the third trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50:603–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mitsui T, Masuyama H, Maki J, Tamada S, Hirano Y, Eto E, et al. Differences in uterine artery blood flow and fetal growth between the early and late onset of pregnancy-induced hypertension. J Med Ultrason. 2016;43:509–17.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Miyakoshi K, Tanaka M, Gabionza D, Ishimoto H, Miyazaki T, Yoshimura Y. Prediction of smallness for gestational age by maternal serum human chorionic gonadotropin levels and by uterine artery Doppler study. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2001;16:42–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ohkuchi A, Minakami H, Sato I, Mori H, Nakano T, Tateno M. Predicting the risk of pre-eclampsia and a small-for-gestational-age infant by quantitative assessment of the diastolic notch in uterine artery flow velocity waveforms in unselected women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16:171–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Paules C, Youssef L, Rovira C, Crovetto F, Nadal A, Peguero A, et al. Distinctive patterns of placental lesions in pre-eclampsia vs small-for-gestational age and their association with fetoplacental Doppler. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;54:609–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Phupong V, Dejthevaporn T, Tanawattanacharoen S, Manotaya S, Tannirandorn Y, Charoenvidhya D. Predicting the risk of preeclampsia and small for gestational age infants by uterine artery Doppler in low-risk women. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2003;268:158–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Quant HS, Sammel MD, Parry S, Schwartz N. Second-trimester 3-dimensional placental sonography as a predictor of small-for-gestational-age birth weight. J Ultrasound Med. 2016;35:1693–702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rial-Crestelo M, Martinez-Portilla RJ, Cancemi A, Caradeux J, Fernandez L, Peguero A, et al. Added value of cerebro-placental ratio and uterine artery Doppler at routine third trimester screening as a predictor of SGA and FGR in non-selected pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32:2554–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rodríguez M, Couve-Pérez C, San Martín S, Martínez F, Lozano C, Sepúlveda-Martínez A. Perinatal outcome and placental apoptosis in patients with late-onset pre-eclampsia and abnormal uterine artery Doppler at diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51:775–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Roeder HA, Dejbakhsh SZ, Parast MM, Laurent LC, Woelkers DA. Abnormal uterine artery Doppler velocimetry predicts adverse outcomes in patients with abnormal analytes. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2014;4:296–301.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rueangjaroen P, Luewan S, Phrommintikul A, Leemasawat K, Tongsong T. The cardio-ankle vascular index as a predictor of adverse pregnancy outcomes. J Hypertens. 2021;39:2082–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Schwartz N, Sammel MD, Leite R, Parry S. First-trimester placental ultrasound and maternal serum markers as predictors of small-for-gestational-age infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:e1-8.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Seravalli V, Block-Abraham DM, Turan OM, Doyle LE, Blitzer MG, Baschat AA. Second-trimester prediction of delivery of a small-for-gestational-age neonate: integrating sequential Doppler information, fetal biometry, and maternal characteristics. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34:1037–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Shwarzman P, Waintraub AY, Frieger M, Bashiri A, Mazor M, Hershkovitz R. Third-trimester abnormal uterine artery Doppler findings are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32:2107–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Triunfo S, Crovetto F, Rodriguez-Sureda V, Scazzocchio E, Crispi F, Dominguez C, et al. Changes in uterine artery Doppler velocimetry and circulating angiogenic factors in the first half of pregnancies delivering a small-for-gestational-age neonate. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:357–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Valiño N, Giunta G, Gallo DM, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Biophysical and biochemical markers at 35–37 weeks’ gestation in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47:203–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Seravalli V, Block-Abraham DM, Turan OM, Doyle LE, Kopelman JN, Atlas RO, et al. First-trimester prediction of small-for-gestational age neonates incorporating fetal Doppler parameters and maternal characteristics. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:e1-8.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Zarean E, Shabaninia S. The assessment of association between uterine artery pulsatility index at 30–34 week’s gestation and adverse perinatal outcome. Adv Biomed Res. 2018;7:111.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Hafner E, Schuchter K, Metzenbauer M, Philipp K. Uterine artery Doppler perfusion in the first and second pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16:625–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Gómez O, Figueras F, Fernández S, Bennasar M, Martínez JM, Puerto B, et al. Reference ranges for uterine artery mean pulsatility index at 11–41 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32(2):128–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Cavoretto PI, Salmeri N, Candiani M, Farina A. Reference ranges of uterine artery pulsatility index from first to third trimester based on serial Doppler measurements: longitudinal cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023;61(4):474–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Gómez O, Martínez JM, Figueras F, Del Río M, Borobio V, Puerto B, et al. Uterine artery Doppler at 11–14 weeks of gestation to screen for hypertensive disorders and associated complications in an unselected population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:490–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Pilalis A, Souka AP, Antsaklis P, Daskalakis G, Papantoniou N, Mesogitis S, et al. Screening for pre-eclampsia and fetal growth restriction by uterine artery Doppler and PAPP-A at 11–14 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29:135–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Talbert DG. Uterine flow velocity waveform shape as an indicator of maternal and placental development failure mechanisms: a model-based synthesizing approach. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;6:261–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Cavoretto PI, Farina A, Gaeta G, Sigismondi C, Spinillo S, Casiero D, et al. Uterine artery Doppler in singleton pregnancies conceived after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection with fresh vs frozen blastocyst transfer: longitudinal cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;56(4):603–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ruijuan Zhi and Xiangping Tao are co-first author.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ultrasound, The First People’s Hospital of Lianyungang, No.6 Zhenhua East Road, Haizhou District, Lianyungang, 222061, P.R. China

    Ruijuan Zhi, Ming Yu & Honge Li

  2. Department of Pediatrics, The Affiliated Lianyungang Oriental Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Lianyungang, 222000, P.R. China

    Xiangping Tao

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First People’s Hospital of Lianyungang, Lianyungang, 222061, P.R. China

    Qingtao Li

Authors
  1. Ruijuan Zhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiangping Tao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qingtao Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ming Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Honge Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RZ, XT and HL designed the study. RZ and XT wrote the manuscript. QL collected and analyzed the data. QL and MY interpreted the data. HL critically reviewed, edited and approved the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Honge Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Supplementary table S1. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessment for cohort studies. Supplementary table S2. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessment for case-control studies. Supplementary table S3. Certainty of evidence for the included studies.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhi, R., Tao, X., Li, Q. et al. Association between transabdominal uterine artery Doppler and small-for-gestational-age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 23, 659 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05968-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05968-w

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us