Incidence of vasa praevia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives To derive accurate estimates of the incidence of vasa praevia (VP) in a routine population of unselected pregnancies. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane database was performed to review relevant citations reporting outcomes in pregnancies with VP from January 2000 until 5 April 2023. Eligibility criteria for selection of studies Prospective or retrospective cohort or population studies that provided data regarding VP cases in routine unselected pregnancies during the study period. We included studies published in the English language after the year 2000 to reflect contemporary obstetric and neonatal practice. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved citations and extracted data. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses was used to ensure standardised reporting of studies. Results A total of 3847 citations were screened and 82 full-text manuscripts were retrieved for analysis. There were 24 studies that met the inclusion criteria, of which 12 studies reported prenatal diagnosis with a systematic protocol of screening. There were 1320 pregnancies with VP in a total population of 2 278 561 pregnancies; the weighted pooled incidence of VP was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.01) per 1000 pregnancies, corresponding to 1 case of VP per 1271 (95% CI: 990 to 1692) pregnancies. Nested subanalysis of studies reporting screening for VP based on a specific protocol identified 395 pregnancies with VP in a population of 732 654 pregnancies with weighted pooled incidence of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.53 to 1.18) per 1000 pregnancies (1 case of VP per 1218 (95% CI: 847 to 1901) pregnancies). Conclusion The incidence of VP in unselected pregnancies is 1 in 1218 pregnancies. This is higher than is previously reported and can be used as a basis to assess whether screening for this condition should be part of routine clinical practice. Incorporation of strategies to screen for VP in routine clinical practice is likely to prevent 5% of stillbirths. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020125495.


Information sources
6 Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies.Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.

5
Search strategy 7 Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used.

(Supplementary table 1)
Selection process 8 Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

Data collection process
9 Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

5
Data items 10a List and define all outcomes for which data were sought.Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.

10b
List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g.participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources).Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.

5,6
Study risk of bias assessment 11 Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

5,6
Effect measures 12 Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g.risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.
6 Synthesis 13a Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g.tabulating the study 5 BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance Supplemental material placed on this supplemental material which has been supplied by the author(s) 13b Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions.

6
13c Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses.6 13d Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s).If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.

6
13e Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g.subgroup analysis, meta-regression).

6
13f Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results.NA

Reporting bias assessment
14 Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).6 Certainty assessment 15 Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.

Study selection 16a
Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram.

6
Figure 1 16b Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded. 6 BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance Supplemental material placed on this supplemental material which has been supplied by the author(s)