↓ Skip to main content

Abnormal placental cord insertion and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Abnormal placental cord insertion and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0641-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Khadijah Irfah Ismail, Ailish Hannigan, Keelin O’Donoghue, Amanda Cotter

Abstract

Abnormal placental cord insertion (PCI) includes marginal cord insertion (MCI) and velamentous cord insertion (VCI). VCI has been shown to be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the association of abnormal PCI and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Databases were searched in December 2016 (from inception to December 2016). The reference lists of eligible studies were scrutinized to identify further studies. Potentially eligible studies were reviewed by two authors independently using the following inclusion criteria: singleton pregnancies, velamentous cord insertion, marginal cord insertion, and pregnancy outcomes. Case reports and series were excluded. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Outcomes for meta-analysis were dichotomous and results are presented as summary risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review, all of which were assessed as good quality. Normal PCI and MCI were grouped together as non-VCI and compared with VCI in seven studies. Four studies compared MCI, VCI, and normal PCI separately. Two other studies compared MCI with normal PCI, and VCI was excluded from their analysis. Studies in this systematic review reported an association between abnormal PCI, defined differently across studies, with preterm birth, small for gestational age (SGA), low birthweight (< 2500 g), emergency cesarean delivery, and intrauterine fetal death. Four cohort studies comparing MCI, VCI, and normal PCI separately were included in a meta-analysis resulting in a statistically significant increased risk of emergency cesarean delivery for VCI (pooled RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.56-5.22, P = 0.0006) and abnormal PCI (pooled RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.33-2.36, P < 0.0001) compared to normal PCI. The available evidence suggests an association between abnormal PCI and emergency cesarean delivery. However, the number of studies with comparable definitions of abnormal PCI was small, limiting the analysis of other adverse pregnancy outcomes, and further research is required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 17%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 5 5%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 30 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 35 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,353,954
of 23,393,453 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#638
of 2,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,903
of 442,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#18
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,393,453 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,032 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 442,008 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.