We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Epidemiology of placenta previa accreta: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMJ Open 2019 November 13
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence and incidence of placenta previa complicated by placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) and to examine the different criteria being used for the diagnosis.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov and MEDLINE were searched between August 1982 and September 2018.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies reporting on placenta previa complicated by PAS diagnosed in a defined obstetric population.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction using a predefined protocol and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies, with difference agreed by consensus. The primary outcomes were overall prevalence of placenta previa, incidence of PAS according to the type of placenta previa and the reported clinical outcomes, including the number of peripartum hysterectomies and direct maternal mortality. The secondary outcomes included the criteria used for the prenatal ultrasound diagnosis of placenta previa and the criteria used to diagnose and grade PAS at birth.
RESULTS: A total of 258 articles were reviewed and 13 retrospective and 7 prospective studies were included in the analysis, which reported on 587 women with placenta previa and PAS. The meta-analysis indicated a significant (p<0.001) heterogeneity between study estimates for the prevalence of placenta previa, the prevalence of placenta previa with PAS and the incidence of PAS in the placenta previa cohort. The median prevalence of placenta previa was 0.56% (IQR 0.39-1.24) whereas the median prevalence of placenta previa with PAS was 0.07% (IQR 0.05-0.16). The incidence of PAS in women with a placenta previa was 11.10% (IQR 7.65-17.35).
CONCLUSIONS: The high heterogeneity in qualitative and diagnostic data between studies emphasises the need to implement standardised protocols for the diagnoses of both placenta previa and PAS, including the type of placenta previa and grade of villous invasiveness.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017068589.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov and MEDLINE were searched between August 1982 and September 2018.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies reporting on placenta previa complicated by PAS diagnosed in a defined obstetric population.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction using a predefined protocol and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies, with difference agreed by consensus. The primary outcomes were overall prevalence of placenta previa, incidence of PAS according to the type of placenta previa and the reported clinical outcomes, including the number of peripartum hysterectomies and direct maternal mortality. The secondary outcomes included the criteria used for the prenatal ultrasound diagnosis of placenta previa and the criteria used to diagnose and grade PAS at birth.
RESULTS: A total of 258 articles were reviewed and 13 retrospective and 7 prospective studies were included in the analysis, which reported on 587 women with placenta previa and PAS. The meta-analysis indicated a significant (p<0.001) heterogeneity between study estimates for the prevalence of placenta previa, the prevalence of placenta previa with PAS and the incidence of PAS in the placenta previa cohort. The median prevalence of placenta previa was 0.56% (IQR 0.39-1.24) whereas the median prevalence of placenta previa with PAS was 0.07% (IQR 0.05-0.16). The incidence of PAS in women with a placenta previa was 11.10% (IQR 7.65-17.35).
CONCLUSIONS: The high heterogeneity in qualitative and diagnostic data between studies emphasises the need to implement standardised protocols for the diagnoses of both placenta previa and PAS, including the type of placenta previa and grade of villous invasiveness.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017068589.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app