SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Sherer DM, Langer O. Oligohydramnios: use and misuse in clinical management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18:4119.
  • 2
    Anandakumar C, Biswas A, Arulkumaran S, Wong YC, Malarvishy G, Ratnam SS. Should assessment of amniotic fluid volume form an integral part of antenatal fetal surveillance of high risk pregnancy? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;33:2725.
  • 3
    Bastide A, Manning F, Harman C. Ultrasound evaluation of amniotic fluid: outcome of pregnancies with severe oligohydramnios. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;154:895900.
  • 4
    Begum F, Buckshee K, Pande JN. Antenatal fetal assessment using biophysical profile score. Bangladesh MRC Bull 1996;22:519.
  • 5
    Chauhan SP, Hendrix NW, Morrison JC, Magann EF, Devoe LD. Intrapartum oligohydramnios does not predict adverse peripartum outcome among high-risk parturients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176:11306.
  • 6
    Magann EF, Morton ML, Nolan TE, Martin JN Jr, Whitworth NS, Morrison JC. Comparative efficacy of two sonographic measurements for the detection of aberrations in the amniotic fluid volume and the effect of amniotic fluid volume on pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:95962.
  • 7
    Magann EF, Whitworth NS, Rhodes PG, Bass JD, Chauhan SP, Morrison JC. Effect of amniotic fluid volume on neonatal outcome in diamniotic twin pregnancies. Southern Med J 1998;91:9425.
  • 8
    Nabhan AF, Abdelmoula YA. Amniotic fluid index versus single deepest vertical pocket: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2009;104:1848.
  • 9
    Bossuyt PM, Lijmer JG, Mol BW. Randomised comparison of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient. Lancet 2000;356:18447.
  • 10
    Cochrane. Cochrane Methods Working Group on systematic reviews of screening and diagnostic tests: recommended methods. Cochrane. 2011 [www.cochrane.org/cochrane/sadtdoc1.htm]. Accessed 10 July 2010.
  • 11
    Deeks J. Systematic Reviews in Health care: systematic reviews of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 2001;323:15762.
  • 12
    Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:66776.
  • 13
    Khan KS, Dinnes J, Kleijnen J. Systematic reviews to evaluate diagnostic tests. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001;95:611.
  • 14
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D; The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535.
  • 15
    Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.
  • 16
    Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PN, Kleijnen J. Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:9.
  • 17
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:404.
  • 18
    Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282:10616.
  • 19
    Rutjes AW, Reitsma J, Di N, Smidt N, van Rijn J, Bossuyt PM. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. Can Med Assoc J 2006;174:46976.
  • 20
    Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Weswood ME, Mallet S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:52936.
  • 21
    Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. The interpretaion of random effects meta-analysis. BMJ 2011;342:d549.
  • 22
    DerSimonian R, Liard N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:17788.
  • 23
    Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiological analyses. Am J Epidemiol 1987;125:7618.
  • 24
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:55760.
  • 25
    Higgins JT. Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified. Int J Epidemiol 2008;37:115860.
  • 26
    Sankey S, Weistfels L, Fine M, Kapoor W. An assessment of the use of the continuity correction for sparse data in meta-analysis. Commun Stat Simul Comput 1996;25:103156.
  • 27
    Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, Eastaugh J, Griffin C. Composite outcomes in randomized trials greater precision but with greater uncertainty? JAMA 2003;289:25549.
  • 28
    Harbord RM, Harris RJ, Sterne JAC. Updated tests for small study effects in meta-analysis. Stata J 2009;9:197210.
  • 29
    Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ionnidis JPA, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011;342:d4002.
  • 30
    Deeks J. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 2001;323:15762.
  • 31
    Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews [Review] [46 refs]. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:98290.
  • 32
    Honest H, Khan KS. Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature. BMC Health Services Research 2002;2:4.
  • 33
    Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users’ guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994;271:7037.
  • 34
    Harbord RM, Harris RJ, Sterne JAC, Steichen T. METABIAS: Stata Module to Test for Small-Study Effects in Meta-analysis. Boston: Boston College Department of Economics, Statistical Software Components S404901, 2009.
  • 35
    Harris RJ, Bradburn M, Deeks J, Harbord RM, Altman D, Steichen T, et al. METAN: Stata Module for Fixed and Random Effects Meta-analysis. Statistical Software Components S456798. Boston: Boston College Department of Economics, revised 2009, 2006.
  • 36
    Harbord RM. METANDI: Stata Module to Perform Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy. Statistical Software Components S456932. Boston: Boston College Department of Economics, 2008.
  • 37
    Royston P, Moons KG, Altman D, Vergnuwe Y. Prognosis and prognostic research: developing a prognostic model. BMJ 2009;338:b604.
  • 38
    Flack N, Dore C, Southwell D, Koutris P, Sepulveda W, Fisk NM. The influence of operator transducer pressure on ultrasonographic measurements of amniotic fluid volume. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171:21822.
  • 39
    Flack N, Sepulveda W, Bower S, Fisk NM. Acute maternal hydration in third-trimester oligohydramnios: effects on amniotic fluid volume, uteroplacental perfusion and fetal blood flow and urine output. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;173:118691.
  • 40
    Wax JR, Costigan K, Callan NA, Gregor C, Johnson TRB. Effect of fetal movement on the amniotic fluid index. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:1889.
  • 41
    Rutherford SE, Smith CV, Phelan JP, Kawakami K, Ahn MO. Four quadrant assessment of amniotic fluid volume. Intraobserver and interobserver variation. J Reprod Med 1987;32:5879.
  • 42
    Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Barrilleaux PS, Whitworth NS, Martin JN. Amniotic fluid index and single deepest pocket: weak indicators of abnormal amniotic fluid volumes. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96(5 Pt 1):73740.
  • 43
    Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Doherty DA, Magann MI, Morrison JC. The evidence for abandoming the amniotic fluid index in favor of the single deepest pocket. Am J Perinatol 2007;24:54955.
  • 44
    Riley RD, Hayden J, Moors KGM, Steyerberg E, Abrams KR, Kyzas PA, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: prognostic factor research. PLOS Med 2013;10:e1001380.
  • 45
    Ferrante Di Ruffano F, Hyde CJ, McCaffery KJ, Bossuyt PMM, Deeks JJ. Assessing the value of diagnositc tests: a framework for designing and evaluating trials. BMJ 2012;344:e686.
  • 46
    Chauhan SP, Magann EF, Dohrety DA, Ennen CS, Niederhauser A, Morrison JC. Prediction of small for gestational age newborns using ultrasound estimated and actual amniotic fluid volume: published data revisited. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;48:1604.
  • 47
    Youssef AA, Abdulla SA, Sayed EH, Salem HT, Abdelalim AM, Devoe LD. Superiority of amniotic fluid index over amniotic fluid pocket measurement for predicting bad fetal outcome. South Med J 1993;86:4269.
  • 48
    Desari P, Niveditta G, Raghavan S. The maximal vertical pocket and amniotic fluid index in predicting fetal distress in prolonged pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007;96:8993.
  • 49
    Morris JM, Thompson K, Smithey J, Gaffney G, Cooke I, Chamberlain P, et al. The usefulness of ultrasound assessment of amniotic fluid in predicting adverse outcome in prolonged pregnancy: a prospective blinded observational study. BJOG: Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003;110:98994.
  • 50
    Myles TD, Santolaya-Forgas J. Normal ultrasonic evaluation of amniotic fluid in low-risk patients at term. J Report Med 2002;47:6214.
  • 51
    Fischer RL, McDonnell M, Bianculli KW, Perry RL, Hediger ML, Scholl TO. Amniotic fluid volume estimation in the postdate pregnancy: a comparison of techniques. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81(Pt 1):698704.