↓ 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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 17%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Master 11 13%
Other 5 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 20 23%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Unspecified 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 24 27%

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 01 July 2021.
All research outputs
#3,007,512
of 21,463,092 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#588
of 1,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,729
of 444,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#60
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,463,092 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 1,859 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. 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 444,211 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 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 65% of its contemporaries.