Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the methodology of studies reporting reference ranges for fetal brain structures on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Web of Science databases were searched electronically up to 31 December 2020 to identify studies investigating biometry and growth of the fetal brain and reporting reference ranges for brain structures using MRI. The primary aim was to evaluate the methodology of these studies. A list of 26 quality criteria divided into three domains, including 'study design', 'statistical and reporting methods' and 'specific aspects relevant to MRI', was developed and applied to evaluate the methodological appropriateness of each of the included studies. The overall quality score of a study, ranging between 0 and 26, was defined as the sum of scores awarded for each quality criterion and expressed as a percentage (the lower the percentage, the higher the risk of bias). RESULTS:Fifteen studies were included in this systematic review. The overall mean quality score of the studies evaluated was 48.7%. When focusing on each domain, the mean quality score was 42.0% for 'study design', 59.4% for 'statistical and reporting methods' and 33.3% for 'specific aspects relevant to MRI'. For the 'study design' domain, sample size calculation and consecutive enrolment of women were the items found to be at the highest risk of bias. For the 'statistical and reporting methods' domain, the presence of regression equations for mean and SD for each measurement, the number of measurements taken for each variable and the presence of postnatal assessment information were the items found to be at the highest risk of bias. For the 'specific aspects relevant to MRI' domain, whole fetal brain assessment was not performed in any of the included studies and was therefore considered to be the item at the highest risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS:Most of the previously published studies reporting fetal brain reference ranges on MRI are highly heterogeneous and have low-to-moderate quality in terms of methodology, which is similar to the findings reported for ultrasound studies. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The methodological quality of fetal brain charts has not been critically appraised yet. MATERIAL AND METHODS/METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Web of Science databases were searched electronically up to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was to evaluate the methodology of the studies assessing the growth of fetal brain structures throughout gestation. A list of 28 methodological quality criteria divided into three domains according to "study design", "statistical and reporting methods", and "specific relevant neurosonography aspects" was developed in order to assess the methodological appropriateness of the included studies. The overall quality score was defined as the sum of low risk of bias marks, with the range of possible scores being 0-28. This quality assessment was applied to each individual study reporting reference ranges for fetal brain structures. RESULTS:Sixty studies were included in the systematic review. The overall mean quality score of the studies included in this review was 51.3%. When focusing on each of the assessed domains, the mean quality score was 53.7% for "study design", 54.2% for "statistical and reporting methods" and 38.6% for "specific relevant neurosonography aspects". The sample size calculation, the correlation with a postnatal imaging evaluation and the whole fetal brain assessment were the items at the highest risk of bias for each domain assessed, respectively. The subgroup analysis according to different anatomical location showed the lowest quality score for ventricular and periventricular structures and the highest for cortical structures. CONCLUSIONS:Most previously published studies reporting fetal brain charts suffers from poor methodology and are at high risk of biases, mostly when focusing on neurosonography issues. Further prospective longitudinal studies aiming at constructing specific growth charts for fetal brain structures should follow rigorous methodology to minimize the risk of biases, guarantee higher levels of reproducibility and improve the standard of care.

These practice guidelines follow the mission of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine in collaboration with the Perinatal Medicine Foundation, bringing together groups and individuals throughout the world, with the goal of improving the ultrasound assessment of the fetal Central Nervous System (CNS) anatomy. In fact, this document provides further guidance for healthcare practitioners for the evaluation of the fetal CNS during the mid-trimester ultrasound scan with the aim to increase the ability in evaluating normal fetal anatomy. Therefore, it is not intended to establish a legal standard of care. This document is based on consensus among perinatal experts throughout the world, and serves as a guideline for use in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To determine the rate of recurrent Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) in our clinical practices and to evaluate whether the mode of treatment of a CSP is associated with the risk of recurrent CSP, as well as to review the published literature on recurrent CSP. METHODS:We performed a retrospective search of our six obstetrical and gynecologic departmental ultrasound databases for all CSPs and recurrent CSPs between 2010 and 2019. We extracted various data, including numbers of CSPs with follow-up, numbers attempting and numbers achieving pregnancy following treatment of the CSP and numbers of recurrent CSPs, as well as details of the treatment of the original CSP. After analyzing the clinical data, we evaluated whether the mode of treatment terminating the previous CSP was associated with the risk of recurrent CSP. We also performed a PubMed search for: 'recurrent Cesarean scar pregnancy' and 'recurrent Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy'. Articles were reviewed for year of publication and extraction and analysis of the same data as those obtained from our departmental databases. RESULTS:Our database search identified 252 cases of CSP. The overall rate of clinical follow-up ranged between 71.4% and 100%, according to treatment site (mean, 90.9%). Among these, 105 were followed by another pregnancy after treatment of the previous CSP. Of these, 36 (34.3%) pregnancies were recurrent CSP, with 27 women having a single recurrence and three women having multiple recurrences, one with two, one with three and one with four. We did not find any particular single or combination treatment mode terminating the previous CSP to be associated with recurrent CSP. The literature search identified 17 articles that yielded sufficient information for us to evaluate their reported prevalence of recurrent CSP. They reported 1743 primary diagnoses of CSP, and 944 had reliable follow-up. There were data for 489 cases in which a woman attempted to conceive again, and on 327 pregnancies achieved, after treatment of a previous CSP. Of these, 67 (20.5%) were recurrent CSP. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:On the basis of our pooled clinical data and review of the literature, recurrent CSP is apparently more common than was previously assumed based upon mostly single case reports or series with few cases. This should be borne in mind when counseling patients undergoing treatment for CSP regarding their risk of recurrence. We found no obvious causal relationship or association between the type of treatment for the previous CSP and recurrence of CSP. Patients pregnant after treatment for a CSP should be encouraged to have an early (5-7-week) first-trimester transvaginal scan to determine the location of the gestation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.