Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29782696›Full record

Trial reportBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2018

Routine antenatal ultrasound in low- and middle-income countries: first look - a cluster randomised trial.

R L Goldenberg, R O Nathan, D Swanson, S Saleem, W Mirza, F Esamai, D Muyodi, A L Garces, L Figueroa, E Chomba and 23 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
19.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Routine ultrasound for fetal assessment before 24 weeks' gestation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

33 authors at 14 institutions in 6 countries.

R L GoldenbergColumbia University, New York, NY, USA.
R O NathanUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
D SwansonUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
S SaleemAga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
W MirzaAga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
F EsamaiMoi University, Eldoret, Kenya.
D MuyodiMoi University, Eldoret, Kenya.
A L GarcesINCAP, Guatemala City, Guatemala.
L FigueroaINCAP, Guatemala City, Guatemala.
E ChombaUniversity of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
M ChiwalaUniversity of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
M MwenechanyaUniversity of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
A TshefuKinshasa School of Public Health, Kinshasa, DRC.
A LokangakoKinshasa School of Public Health, Kinshasa, DRC.
V L BolambaKinshasa School of Public Health, Kinshasa, DRC.
J L MooreRTI International, Durham, NC, USA.
H FranklinRTI International, Durham, NC, USA.
J SwansonUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
E A LiechtyIndiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
C L BoseUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
N F KrebsUniversity of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.
K Michael HambidgeUniversity of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.
W A CarloUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
N KanaizaMoi University, Eldoret, Kenya.
F NaqviAga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
I S PinedaSan Carlos University, Guatemala City, Guatemala.
W López-GomezNICHD, Bethesda, MD, USA.
D HamsumondeUniversity of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
M S HarrisonColumbia University, New York, NY, USA.
M Koso-ThomasNICHD, Bethesda, MD, USA.
M MiodovnikNICHD, Bethesda, MD, USA.
D D WallaceRTI International, Durham, NC, USA.
E M McClureRTI International, Durham, NC, USA.
RTI International · USUniversity of Zambia · ZMAga Khan University · PKEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development · USMinistry of Public Health · CDMoi University · KEUniversity of Washington · USColumbia University · USInstitute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama · GTUniversity of Colorado Denver · USIndiana University IndianapolisUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of San Carlos of Guatemala · GT

Funding

Global Network for Women's and Children's Health Research Data Coordinating CenterU24HD092094 · NICHD · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI Elizabeth M McClure · 2017 to 2026
$17.8M
The University of North Carolina-Kinshasa School of Public Health Research Partnership in the Democratic Republic of Congo; a Model for Improving Women'sand Children's Health Through ResearchUG1HD076465 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MELISSA SCHWEIKHART BAUSERMAN · 2018 to 2026
$5.6M
Nutrition-specific interventions to improve long-term maternal-child health outcomesUG1HD076474 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Edwin Jose Asturias, NANCY F KREBS · 2018 to 2026
$5.4M
The Global Network and Preconception Maternal NutritionU10HD076474 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI KREBS, NANCY F · 2013 to 2017
$5.1M
Bill and Melinda Gates FoundationEunice Kennedy Shriver NICHDNICHD NIH HHS U10 HD076474NICHD NIH HHS U24 HD092094NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD076465NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD076474
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveUltrasound is widely regarded as an important adjunct to antenatal care (ANC) to guide practice and reduce perinatal mortality. We assessed the impact of ANC ultrasound use at health centres in resource-limited countries.

designCluster randomised trial.

settingClusters within five countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Kenya, Pakistan, and Zambia)

methodsClusters were randomised to standard ANC or standard care plus two ultrasounds and referral for complications. The study trained providers in intervention clusters to perform basic obstetric ultrasounds.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of maternal mortality, maternal near-miss mortality, stillbirth, and neonatal mortality.

resultsDuring the 24-month trial, 28 intervention and 28 control clusters had 24 263 and 23 160 births, respectively; 78% in the intervention clusters received at least one study ultrasound; 60% received two. The prevalence of conditions noted including twins, placenta previa, and abnormal lie was within expected ranges. 9% were referred for an ultrasound-diagnosed condition, and 71% attended the referral. The ANC (RR 1.0 95% CI 1.00, 1.01) and hospital delivery rates for complicated pregnancies (RR 1.03 95% CI 0.89, 1.20) did not differ between intervention and control clusters nor did the composite outcome (RR 1.09 95% CI 0.97, 1.23) or its individual components.

conclusionsDespite availability of ultrasound at ANC in the intervention clusters, neither ANC nor hospital delivery for complicated pregnancies increased. The composite outcome and the individual components were not reduced. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Antenatal care ultrasound did not improve a composite outcome that included maternal, fetal, and neonatal mortality.

Indexed as

Maternal-Child Health ServicesMedically Underserved AreaPerinatal CareUltrasonography, PrenatalAdolescentAdultCluster AnalysisDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansInfantInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornMaleMaternal MortalityPregnancyantenatal carelow-/middle-income countriesperinatal mortalityultrasound

Identifiers

PMID29782696
PMCPMC6390492
OpenAlexW2804018211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.