Biophysical profile for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn , Issue 2, 2008, Pages

  Lalor, Joan G ^a   Fawole, Bukola ^b   Alfirevic, Zarko ^c   Devane, Declan ^a  

^a TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN   (Nigeria)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

*Embryonic and fetal development; *Fetal monitoring; *Pregnancy, high risk; *Ultrasonography, prenatal; Female; Humans; Pregnancy

Indexed keywords

AMNION FLUID ANALYSIS; BIOPHYSICS; CARDIOTOCOGRAPHY; CESAREAN SECTION; HIGH RISK PREGNANCY; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; NEWBORN MORBIDITY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; ULTRASOUND;

EID: 44949179375     PISSN: 1469493X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000038.pub2     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Alfirevic 1995 {published data only} Alfirevic Z, Walkinshaw SA. A randomised controlled trial of simple compared with complex antenatal fetal monitoring after 42 weeks of gestation. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1995;102:638-43.
2. Lewis 1999 {published data only} * Lewis DF, Adair CD, Weeks JW, Barrilleaux PS, Edwards MS, Garite TJ. A randomized clinical trial of daily nonstress testing versus biophysical profile in the management of preterm premature rupture of membranes. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999;181:1495-9.
3. Lewis DF, Adair CD, Weeks JW, Barrilleaux PS, Edwards MS, Garite TJ. A randomized clinical trial of nonstress test versus biophysical profile in pretermpremature rupture ofmembranes.American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1998;178(1 Pt 2):S197.
4. Manning 1984 {published data only} Manning FA, Lange IR, Morrison I, Harman CR. Fetal biophysical profile score and the nonstress test: a comparative trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1984;64:326-31.
5. Nageotte 1994 {published data only} Nageotte MP, Towers CV, Asrat T, Freeman RK. Perinatal outcome with the modified biophysical profile. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994;170:1672-6.
6. Platt 1985 {published and unpublished data} Platt LD, Walla CA, Paul RH, Trujillo ME, Loesser CV, Jacobs ND, et al.A prospective trial of the fetal biophysical profile vs the nonstress test in the management of high-risk pregnancies. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1985;153(6):624-33.
7. Chauhan 2004 {published data only} Chauhan SP, Doherty DD, Magann EF, Cahanding F, Moreno F, Klausen JH. Amniotic fluid index vs single deepest pocket technique duringmodified biophysical profile: a randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;191(2):661-6.
8. Habek 2001 {published data only} Habek D, Hodek B, Herman R, Maticevic A, Jugovic D, Habek J, et al.Modified fetal biophysical profile in the assessment of perinatal outcome. Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie 2001;123(7):411-7.
9. Jamal 2005 {published data only} Jamal A. A prospective trial of the fetal biophysical vs the modofoed biophysical in the management of high-risk pregnancies. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2005;26:444.
10. James 2001 {published data only} James C, George SS, Gaunekar N, Seshadri L. Management of prolonged pregnancy: a randomized trial of induction of labour and antepartum foetal monitoring. National Medical Journal of India 2001;14(5):270-3.
11. Kamel 1999 {published data only}Kamel HS, Makhlouf AM, Youssef AA. Simplified biophysical profile: an antepartum fetal screening test. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 1999;47(4):223-8.
12. Magann 2003 {published data only} Magann E, Doherty D, Field K, Chauhan S, Muffley P, Morrison J. Biophysical profile with amniotic fluid volume assessment: a randomized controlled trial of the amniotic fluid index versus single deepest pocket [abstract]. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003;189(6):S179.
13. Magann EF, Doherty DA, Field K, Chauhan SP, Muffley PE, Morrison JC. Biophysical profile with amniotic fluid volume assessments. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004;104(1):5-10.
14. Ott 1988 {published data only} Ott WJ, Mora G, Arias F, Sunderji S, Sheldon G. Comparison of the modified biophysical profile to a "new" biophysical profile incorporating the middle cerebral artery to umbilical artery velocity flow systolic/diastolic ratio. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1988;178(6):1346-53.
15. Tongsong 1999 {published data only} Tongsong T, Piyamongkol W, Anantachote A, Pulphutapong K. The rapid biophysical profile for assessment of fetal well-being. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 1999;25(6):431-6.
16. Tyrrell 1990 {published data only} Tyrrell SN, Lilford RJ, MacDonald H, Nelson E, Porter J, Gupta JK. Randomized comparison of routine vs highly selective use of Doppler ultrasound and biophysical scoring to investigate high risk pregnancies. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1990;10:909-16.
17. Lien 1994 {published data only} Lien JM, Nageotte MP, Towers CV, de Veciana M, Toohey JS. Intrauterine growth retardation: contraction stress test or biophysical profile?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994;170:316.
18. Petrovic 1998 {published data only} Petrovic O, Skunca E, Matejcic N. A simplified fetal biophysical profile. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 1998;61(1):9-14.
19. ACOG 2000 ACOG Practice Bulletin. Antepartum fetal surveillance. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2000;68:175-85.
20. Archibong 1999 Archibong EI. Biophysical profile score in late pregnancy and timing of delivery. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 1999;64(2):129-33.
21. Baskett 1988 Baskett TF. Gestational age and fetal biophysical assessment. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1988;158(2):332-4.
22. Baskett 1989 Baskett TF, Liston RM. Fetal movement monitoring: clinical application. Clinics in Perinatology 1989;16:613-25.
23. Begum 1996 Begum F, Buckshee K, Pande JN. Antenatal fetal assessment using biophysical profile score. Bangladesh Medical Research Council Bulletin 1996;22(2):51-9.
24. Carlan 1991 Carlan SJ, O' Brien WF. The effect of magnesium sulfate on the biophysical profile of normal term fetuses. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1991;77(5):681-4.
25. Clark 1989 Clark SL, Sabey P, Jolley K. Non-stress testing with acoustic stimulation and amniotic fluid volume assessment: 5973 tests without unexpected fetal death. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1989;160:694-7.
26. Deren 2001 Deren O, Karaer C, Onderoglu L, Yigit N, Durukan T, Bahado-Singh RO. The effect of steroids on the biophysical profile and Doppler indices of umbilical and middle cerebral arteries in healthy preterm fetuses. European Journal of Obstetrics& Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2001;1:72-6.
27. East 2005 East CE, Smyth R, Leader LR, Henshall NE, Colditz PB, Tan KH. Vibroacoustic stimulation for fetal assessment in labour in the presence of a nonreassuring fetal heart rate trace. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. [Art. No.: CD004664. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004664. pub2]
28. Evertson 1979 Evertson LR, Gauthier RJ, Schfrin BS, Paul RH. Antepartum fetal heart rate testing. I. Evolution of the nonstress test. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1979;133:29-33.
29. Flack 1994 Flack NJ, Dore C, Southwell D, Kourtis P, Sepulveda W, Fisk NM. The influence of operator transducer pressure on ultrasonographic measurements of amniotic fluid volume. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994;171(1):218-22.
30. Grant 1989 Grant A, Elbourne D, Valentin L, Alexander S. Routine formal movement counting and risk of antepartum late death in normally formed singletons. Lancet 1989;2:345-9.
31. Harrington 1998 Harrington K, Thompson O, Jordan L, Page J, Carpenter RG, Campbell S. Obstetric outcome in women who present with a reduction in fetal movements in the third trimester of pregnancy. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 1998;26:77-82.
32. Higgins 2005 Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/hbook/ htm (accessed 2005).
33. Leader 1981 Leader LR, Baillie P, Van Schalkwyk DJ. Fetal movements and fetal outcome: a prospective study. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1981;57:431-6.
34. Manning 1980 Manning FA, Platt LD, Sipos L. Antepartum fetal evaluation: development of a new biophysical profile. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1980;136:787-95.
35. Manning 1995 Manning FA. Dynamic ultrasound-based fetal assessment: the fetal biophysical score. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 1995;38:26-44.
36. Marsal 1983 Marsal K. Ultrasonic assessment of fetal activity. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 1983;10:541-63.
37. Moore 1989 Moore TR, Piacquadio K. A prospective evaluation of fetal movement screening to reduce the incidence of antepartumfetal death. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1989;160:1075-80.
38. Natale 1979 Natale R, Clewlow F, Dawes GS. Measurement of fetal forelimb movements in the fetal lamb in utero. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1981;140:545-51.
39. Neilson 1996 Neilson JP, Alfirevic Z. Doppler ultrasound for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1996, Issue 4. [Art. No.: CD000073. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000073]
40. Pattison 1999 Pattison N, McCowan L. Cardiotocography for antepartum fetal assessment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1999, Issue 1. [Art. No.: CD001068. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001068]
41. Peaceman 1989 Peaceman AM, Meyer BA, Thorp JA, Parisi VM, Creasy RK. The effect of magnesium sulfate tocolysis on the fetal biophysical profile. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1989;161(3):771-4.
42. Phelan 1987 Phelan JP, Smith CV, Broussard P, Small M. Amniotic fluid volume assessment with the four-quadrant technique at 36-42 weeks' gestation. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1987;32:540-2.
43. Rayburn 1982 Rayburn WF. Clinical implications from monitoring fetal activity. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1982;144:967-80.
44. Rayburn 1990 Rayburn WF. Fetal body movement monitoring. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 1990;17:95-110.
45. RevMan 2003 The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 4.2 for Windows. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2003.
46. Sadovsky 1973 Sadovsky E, Yaffe H. Daily fetal movement recording and fetal prognosis. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1973;41:845-50.
47. Schifrin 1979 Schifrin BS. The rationale of antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1979;23:213-21.
48. Tan 2001 Tan KH, Smyth R. Fetal vibroacoustic stimualtion for facilitation of tests of fetal wellbeing. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 1. [Art. No.: CD002963. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002963]
49. Valentin 1986 Velentin L, Marsal K, Wahlgren L. Subjective recording of fetal movements. III. Screening of a pregnant population; the clinical significance of decreased fetal movement. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1986;65:753-8.
50. Valentin 1987 Valentin L, Marsal K. Pregnancy outcome in women perceiving decreased fetal movement. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1987;24:23-32.
51. Vintzileos 1983 Vintzileos AM, Campbell WA, Ingardia CJ, Nochimson DJ. The fetal biophysical profile and its predictive value. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1983;62(3):271-8.
52. CDSR 1996 Alfirevic Z, Neilson JP. Biophysical profile for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1996, Issue 1. [Art. No.: CD000038. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000038]