Diagnostic protocols for the management of pregnancy of unknown location: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Background There is no international consensus on how to manage women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL). Objectives To present a systematic quantitative review summarising the evidence related to management protocols for PUL. Search strategy MEDLINE, COCHRANE and DARE databases were searche...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2019-01, Vol.126 (2), p.190-198
Main Authors: Bobdiwala, S, Saso, S, Verbakel, JY, Al‐Memar, M, Van Calster, B, Timmerman, D, Bourne, T
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Best practice
Case reports
Chorionic Gonadotropin - blood
Data processing
Decision Support Techniques
Ectopic pregnancy
Evidence-based medicine
Female
Humans
Logistic Models
Management
Medical diagnosis
Meta-analysis
Pituitary (anterior)
Pregnancy
Pregnancy complications
pregnancy of unknown location
Pregnancy, Ectopic - blood
Pregnancy, Ectopic - diagnosis
Pregnancy, Ectopic - therapy
Progesterone
Progesterone - blood
Risk Assessment
ROC Curve
Sensitivity and Specificity
Systematic review
Ultrasound
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background There is no international consensus on how to manage women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL). Objectives To present a systematic quantitative review summarising the evidence related to management protocols for PUL. Search strategy MEDLINE, COCHRANE and DARE databases were searched from 1 January 1984 to 31 January 2017. The primary outcome was accurate risk prediction of women initially diagnosed with a PUL having an ectopic pregnancy (high risk) as opposed to either a failed PUL or intrauterine pregnancy (low risk). Selection criteria All studies written in the English language, which were not case reports or series that assessed women classified as having a PUL at initial ultrasound. Data collection and analysis Forty‐three studies were included. QUADAS‐2 criteria were used to assess the risk of bias. We used a novel, linear mixed‐effects model and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves for the thresholds of interest. Main results There was a high risk of differential verification bias in most studies. Meta‐analyses of accuracy were performed on (i) single human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) cut‐off levels, (ii) hCG ratio (hCG at 48 hours/initial hCG), (iii) single progesterone cut‐off levels and (iv) the ‘M4 model’ (a logistic regression model based on the initial hCG and hCG ratio). For predicting an ectopic pregnancy, the areas under the curves (95% CI) for these four management protocols were as follows: (i) 0.42 (0.00–0.99), (ii) 0.69 (0.57–0.78), (iii) 0.69 (0.54–0.81) and (iv) 0.87 (0.83–0.91), respectively. Conclusions The M4 model was the best available method for predicting a final outcome of ectopic pregnancy. Developing and validating risk prediction models may optimise the management of PUL. Tweetable Pregnancy of unknown location meta‐analysis: M4 model has best test performance to predict ectopic pregnancy. Tweetable Pregnancy of unknown location meta‐analysis: M4 model has best test performance to predict ectopic pregnancy.
ISSN:1470-0328
1471-0528
DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.15442