Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21069696›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Different communication strategies for disclosing results of diagnostic prenatal testing.

Faris Mujezinovic, Anica Prosnik, Zarko Alfirevic

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Rapid aneuploidy detection or karyotyping? Ethical reflection.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Faris MujezinovicUniversity Clinical Department of Gynecology and Perinatology, University Clinical Center Maribor, Ljubljanska 5, Maribor, Slovenia, 2000.
Anica Prosnik
Zarko Alfirevic
University Clinical Centre Maribor · SILiverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAny screening program aiming to reassure pregnant women that their unborn baby is healthy will cause anxiety while waiting for the test results.

objectives1) To determine if revealing amniocentesis or chorionic villous sampling (CVS) results on a fixed date alters maternal anxiety during the waiting period, compared with a policy of revealing the result "when available" (i.e. variable date). 2) To evaluate whether issuing early results from a rapid molecular test alters maternal anxiety during the waiting period. 3) To evaluate whether different methods of communication (telephone, fax, email, face to face) have any impact on the parents' satisfaction and anxiety levels. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised trials, in which methods of issuing prenatal test results are compared. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (Faris Mujezinovic and Zarko Alfirevic) assessed eligibility and trial quality and performed data extraction. MAIN

resultsTwo studies (involving 286 women) from amniocentesis (but none from CVS) compared the impact of communicating results of rapid testing with waiting for definitive karyotype. Unfortunately, it was not possible to perform pooled analysis because one study reported only median (interquartile range) data, presumably because the data were not normally distributed.One study reported a statistically significant reduction in the average anxiety during the waiting period for women who had had a rapid test compared with those who had not (mean difference (MD) -2.30, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -3.08 to - 1.52). The other study compared median (interquartile range) for the trait- and state-anxiety scores and found no difference between the two groups. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe found no conclusive evidence that, while waiting for the full karyotype following amniocentesis, issuing results from a rapid analysis reduces maternal anxiety. The limited evidence from the two trials included in this review does not help resolve the dilemma about whether full karyotyping should be abandoned in favour of limited rapid testing for women undergoing Down's syndrome screening. This choice will rest on clinical arguments and cost-effectiveness rather than impact on anxiety.There is also no evidence to support the view that issuing amniocentesis results as soon as they are available is more user friendly than using a pre-defined fixed date. Studies evaluating the effect of different strategies for disclosing results on women anxiety for CVS are needed.

Indexed as

CommunicationDisclosureAmniocentesisAnxietyChorionic Villi SamplingFemaleHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID21069696
PMCPMC12671841
OpenAlexW1706957855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.