↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasound screening for intrauterine growth restriction: study protocol of a nationwide stepped wedge cluster-randomized trial in The…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasound screening for intrauterine growth restriction: study protocol of a nationwide stepped wedge cluster-randomized trial in The Netherlands (The IRIS Study)
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12884-016-1104-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jens Henrichs, Viki Verfaille, Laura Viester, Myrte Westerneng, Bert Molewijk, Arie Franx, Henriette van der Horst, Judith E. Bosmans, Ank de Jonge, Petra Jellema, The IRIS Study Group

Abstract

Intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) is a major risk factor for perinatal mortality and morbidity. Thus, there is a compelling need to introduce sensitive measures to detect IUGR fetuses. Routine third trimester ultrasonography is increasingly used to detect IUGR. However, we lack evidence for its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and information on ethical considerations of additional third trimester ultrasonography. This nationwide stepped wedge cluster-randomized trial examines the (cost-)effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasonography in reducing severe adverse perinatal outcome through subsequent protocolized management. For this trial, 15,000 women with a singleton pregnancy receiving care in 60 participating primary care midwifery practices will be included at 22 weeks of gestation. In the intervention (n = 7,500) and control group (n = 7,500) fetal growth will be monitored by serial fundal height assessments. All practices will start offering the control condition (ultrasonography based on medical indication). Every three months, 20 practices will be randomized to the intervention condition, i.e. apart from ultrasonography if indicated, two routine ultrasound examinations will be performed (at 28-30 weeks and 34-36 weeks). If IUGR is suspected, both groups will receive subsequent clinical management as described in the IRIS study protocol that will be developed before the start of the trial. The primary dichotomous clinical composite outcome is 'severe adverse perinatal outcome' up to 7 days after birth, including: perinatal death; Apgar score <4 at 5 minutes after birth; impaired consciousness; need for assisted ventilation for more than 24 h; asphyxia; septicemia; meningitis; bronchopulmonary dysplasia; intraventricular hemorrhage; cystic periventricular leukomalacia; neonatal seizures or necrotizing enterocolitis. For the economic evaluation, costs will be measured from a societal perspective. Quality of life will be measured using the EQ-5D-5 L to enable calculation of QALYs. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be performed. In a qualitative sub-study (using diary notes from 32 women for 9 months, at least 10 individual interviews and 2 focus group studies) we will explore ethical considerations of additional ultrasonography and how to deal with them. The results of this trial will assist healthcare providers and policymakers in making an evidence-based decision about whether or not introducing routine third trimester ultrasonography. NTR4367 , 21 March 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 189 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 19%
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 4%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 53 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 16%
Psychology 6 3%
Unspecified 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 59 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,664,592
of 24,078,222 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#723
of 4,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,943
of 323,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#19
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,078,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,893 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.