Background: : Alterations in waveforms in the uterine artery are associated with the development of pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction. We investigated the predictive accuracy of all uterine artery Doppler indices for both conditions in the first and second trimesters. Methods: :We identified relevant studies through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Medion databases (all records to April 2006) and by checking bibliographies of identified studies and consulting with experts. Four of us independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed study validity. We performed a bivariable meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity and calculated likelihood ratios. Results:We identified 74 studies of pre-eclampsia (total 79 547 patients) and 61 studies of intrauterine growth restriction (total 41 131 patients). Uterine artery Doppler ultrasonography provided a more accurate prediction when performed in the second trimester than in the first-trimester. Most Doppler indices had poor predictive characteristics, but this varied with patient risk and outcome severity. An increased pulsatility index with notching was the best predictor of pre-eclampsia (positive likelihood ratio 21.0 among high-risk patients and 7.5 among low-risk patients). It was also the best predictor of overall (positive likelihood ratio 9.1) and severe (positive likelihood ratio 14.6) intrauterine growth restriction among low-risk patients.Interpretation: Abnormal uterine artery waveforms are a better predictor of pre-eclampsia than of intrauterine growth restriction. A pulsatility index, alone or combined with notching, is the most predictive Doppler index. These indices should be used in clinical practice. Future research should also concentrate on combining uterine artery Doppler ultrasonography with other tests. Abstract CMAJ 2008;178(6):701-11From the Departments of General Practice (Cnossen, ter Riet, Bindels), of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Cnossen, Mol, van der Post) and

The tests evaluated are not sufficiently accurate, in our opinion, to suggest their routine use in clinical practice. Calcium and antiplatelet agents, primarily low-dose aspirin, were the interventions shown to prevent pre-eclampsia. The most cost-effective approach to reducing pre-eclampsia is likely to be the provision of an effective, affordable and safe intervention applied to all mothers without prior testing to assess levels of risk. It is probably premature to suggest the implementation of a treat-all intervention strategy at present, however the feasibility and acceptability of this to women could be explored. Rigorous evaluation is needed of tests with modest cost whose initial assessments suggest that they may have high levels of both sensitivity and specificity. Similarly, there is a need for high-quality, adequately powered randomised controlled trials to investigate whether interventions such as advice to rest are indeed effective in reducing pre-eclampsia. In future, an economic model should be developed that considers not just pre-eclampsia, but other related outcomes, particularly those relevant to the infant such as perinatal death, preterm birth and small for gestational age. Such a modelling project should make provision for primary data collection on the safety of interventions and their associated costs.

Based on our review, the Risk of Malignancy Index should be the prediction model of choice in the preoperative assessment of the adnexal mass.