Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26311437›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015

A routine tool with far-reaching influence: Australian midwives' views on the use of ultrasound during pregnancy.

Kristina Edvardsson, Ingrid Mogren, Ann Lalos, Margareta Persson, Rhonda Small

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05765539 (Performance of the Echopen Probe in Its Clinical Use for Pregnancy Follow-up in Senegal), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

NCT05765539 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Performance of the Echopen Probe in Its Clinical Use for Pregnancy Follow-up in Senegal

TypeinterventionalSponsorechOpen FactoryRan2023 to 2025Enrolled224ConditionsPregnancy RelatedArmsechOpen O1 Handheld Ultrasound device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kristina EdvardssonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Umeå University, SE 901 87, Umeå, Sweden. kristina.edvardsson@umu.se.
Ingrid MogrenDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Umeå University, SE 901 87, Umeå, Sweden. ingrid.mogren@umu.se.
Ann LalosDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Umeå University, SE 901 87, Umeå, Sweden. ann.lalos@umu.se.
Margareta PerssonDepartment of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, SE 901 87, Sweden. margareta.persson@umu.se.
Rhonda SmallJudith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, 215 Franklin Street, Melbourne, Vic, 3000, Australia. r.small@latrobe.edu.au.
La Trobe University · AUUmeå University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUltrasound is a tool of increasing importance in maternity care. Midwives have a central position in the care of pregnant women. However, studies regarding their experiences of the use of ultrasound in this context are limited. The purpose of this study was to explore Australian midwives' experiences and views of the role of obstetric ultrasound particularly in relation to clinical management of complicated pregnancy, and situations where maternal and fetal health interests conflict.

methodsA qualitative study was undertaken in Victoria, Australia in 2012, based on six focus group discussions with midwives (n = 37) working in antenatal and intrapartum care, as part of the CROss-Country Ultrasound Study (CROCUS). Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

resultsOne overarching theme emerged from the analysis: Obstetric ultrasound--a routine tool with far-reaching influence, and it was built on three categories. First, the category'Experiencing pros and cons of ultrasound' highlighted that ultrasound was seen as having many advantages; however, it was also seen as contributing to increased medicalisation of pregnancy, to complex and sometimes uncertain decision-making and to parental anxiety. Second, 'Viewing ultrasound as a normalised and unquestioned examination' illuminated how the use of ultrasound has become normalised and unquestioned in health care and in wider society. Midwives were concerned that this impacts negatively on informed consent processes, and at a societal level, to threaten acceptance of human variation and disability. Third, 'Reflecting on the fetus as a person in relation to the pregnant woman' described views on that ultrasound has led to increased 'personification' of the fetus, and that women often put fetal health interests ahead of their own.

conclusionsThe results reflect the significant influence ultrasound has had in maternity care and highlights ethical and professional challenges that midwives face in their daily working lives concerning its use. Further discussion about the use of ultrasound is needed, both among health professionals and in the community, in order to protect women's rights to informed decision-making and autonomy in pregnancy and childbirth and to curb unnecessary medicalisation of pregnancy. Midwives' experiences and views play an essential role in such discussions.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelProfessional CompetenceAdultDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMidwiferyNurse MidwivesNurse's RolePregnancyPrenatal CareQualitative ResearchUltrasonography, DopplerUltrasonography, PrenatalVictoria

Identifiers

PMID26311437
PMCPMC4551225
OpenAlexW1898831178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.