Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29361931›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

Obstetrical provider knowledge and attitudes towards cell-free DNA screening: results of a cross-sectional national survey.

Wilson V Chan, Jo-Ann Johnson, R Douglas Wilson, Amy Metcalfe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Access to Genetic Counselors in the Southern United States.Journal of personalized medicine · 2019
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wilson V ChanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calgary, 4th Floor North Tower - Foothills Medical Centre, 1403 29 St NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 2T9, Canada. wilson.chan2@ahs.ca.
Jo-Ann JohnsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calgary, 4th Floor North Tower - Foothills Medical Centre, 1403 29 St NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 2T9, Canada.
R Douglas WilsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calgary, 4th Floor North Tower - Foothills Medical Centre, 1403 29 St NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 2T9, Canada.
Amy MetcalfeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calgary, 4th Floor North Tower - Foothills Medical Centre, 1403 29 St NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 2T9, Canada.
Foothills Medical Centre · CAUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening has recently acquired tremendous attention, promising patients and healthcare providers a more accurate prenatal screen for aneuploidy than other current screening modalities. It is unclear how much knowledge regarding cfDNA screening obstetrical providers possess which has important implications for the quality and content of the informed consent patients receive.

methodsA survey was designed to assess obstetrical provider knowledge and attitudes towards cfDNA screening and distributed online through the Society of Obstetricians & Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC). Chi-squared tests were used to detect differences in knowledge and attitudes between groups.

results207 respondents completed the survey, composed of 60.6% Obstetricians/Gynecologists (OB/GYN), 15.4% Maternal Fetal Medicine (MFM) specialists, 16.5% General Practitioners (GP), and 7.5% Midwives (MW). MFM demonstrated a significant trend of being most knowledgeable about cfDNA screening followed by OB/GYN, GP, and lastly MW in almost all aspects of cfDNA screening. All groups demonstrated an overall positive attitude towards cfDNA screening; however, OB/GYN and MFM demonstrated a significantly more positive attitude than GP and MW. Despite not yet being a diagnostic test, 19.4% of GP would offer termination of pregnancy immediately following a positive cfDNA screen result compared to none of the MFM and only few OB/GYN or MW.

conclusionsWe have demonstrated that different types of obstetrical providers possess varying amounts of knowledge regarding cfDNA screening with MFM currently having greater knowledge to all other groups. All obstetrical providers must have adequate prenatal screening understanding so that we can embrace the benefits of this novel and promising technology while protecting the integrity of the informed consent process.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAneuploidyCanadaCell-Free Nucleic AcidsChi-Square DistributionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansMaternal Serum Screening TestsMidwiferyObstetricsPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesCell-Free Nucleic AcidsCell-free DNAcfDNANIPTPrenatal diagnosisScreening

Identifiers

PMID29361931
PMCPMC5781306
OpenAlexW2793077060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.