Portable ultrasound technologies for estimating gestational age in pregnant women: a scoping review and analysis of commercially available models.

OBJECTIVES: To identify all available studies assessing the use of portable ultrasound devices for pregnant women, with the specific aim of finding evidence for devices used to determine gestational age and their validity when compared with conventional ultrasound machines. We also wanted to determine what portable ultrasound models are commercially available for obstetric use. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Extracted variables included study design, population, method of ultrasound measurement, devices used and whether studies formally validated accuracy against conventional ultrasound. RESULTS: We searched four databases-Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Maternal and Infant Care. In total 56 studies from 34 countries were identified; most were observational studies. Across all studies, 27 different portable ultrasound models (from 17 manufacturers) were evaluated. Twenty-one studies assessed use of portable ultrasound for evaluating fetal characteristics or estimating gestational age, and 10 of these were formal validation studies. In total, six portable devices have been validated for gestational age estimation against a conventional ultrasound comparator. The web searches identified 102 portable devices (21 manufacturers). These were a mix of handheld devices that connected to a phone or computer, or laptop-style portable ultrasound devices. Prices ranged from US$1190 to US$30 000 and weight ranged from 0.9 kg to 13.0 kg. CONCLUSION: While the number of commercially available portable ultrasound devices continues to grow, there remains a lack of peer-reviewed, quality evidence demonstrating their accuracy and validity when compared with conventional ultrasound machines. This review identified some models that may be useful in gestational age estimation in low-resource settings, but more research is required to help implement the technology at scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered via Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U8KXP).

Randomised trials in maternal and perinatal health in low and middle-income countries from 2010 to 2019: a systematic scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and map all trials in maternal health conducted in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) over the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, to identify geographical and thematic trends, as well as comparing to global causes of maternal death and preidentified priority areas. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Extracted data included location, study characteristics and whether trials corresponded to causes of mortality and identified research priority topics. RESULTS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database, a combined registry of trials from multiple sources. Our search identified 7269 articles, 874 of which were included for analysis. Between 2010 and 2019, maternal health trials conducted in LMICs more than doubled (50-114). Trials were conducted in 61 countries-231 trials (26.4%) were conducted in Iran. Only 225 trials (25.7%) were aligned with a cause of maternal mortality. Within these trials, pre-existing medical conditions, embolism, obstructed labour and sepsis were all under-represented when compared with number of maternal deaths globally. Large numbers of studies were conducted on priority topics such as labour and delivery, obstetric haemorrhage and antenatal care. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, diabetes and health systems and policy-despite being high-priority topics-had relatively few trials. CONCLUSION: Despite trials conducted in LMICs increasing from 2010 to 2019, there were significant gaps in geographical distribution, alignment with causes of maternal mortality and known research priority topics. The research gaps identified provide guidance and insight for future research conduct in low-resource settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/QUJP5.

Cost-effectiveness of antenatal corticosteroids and tocolytic agents in the management of preterm birth: A systematic review.

Background: Preterm birth is a leading cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity, and imposes high health and societal costs. Antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) to accelerate fetal lung maturation are commonly used in conjunction with tocolytics for arresting preterm labour in women at risk of imminent preterm birth. Methods: We conducted a systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of ACS and/or tocolytics as part of preterm birth management. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase (December 2021), as well as a maternal health economic evidence repository collated from NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo, with no date cutoff. Eligible studies were economic evaluations of ACS and/or tocolytics for preterm birth. Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data on cost-effectiveness and assessed study quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Findings: 35 studies were included: 11 studies on ACS, eight on tocolytics to facilitate ACS administration, 12 on acute and maintenance tocolysis, and four studies on a combination of ACS and tocolytics. ACS was cost-effective prior to 34 weeks' gestation, but economic evidence on ACS use at 34-<37 weeks was conflicting. No single tocolytic was identified as the most cost-effective. Studies disagreed on whether ACS and tocolytic in combination were cost-saving when compared to no intervention. Interpretation: ACS use prior to 34 weeks' gestation appears cost-effective. Further studies are required to identify what (if any) tocolytic option is most cost-effective for facilitating ACS administration, and the economic consequences of ACS use in the late preterm period. Funding: UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by WHO.