ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018
Reasons for non-participation in malformation scans in Denmark: a cohort study.
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 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prenatal detection of major congenital malformations in a cohort of 19 367 Danish fetuses with a complete follow-up six months after birth.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Article
- Parental information about the option to apply for pregnancy termination after the detection of a congenital abnormality and factors influencing parental decision-making: a cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Epidemiology of Multiple Congenital Anomalies Before and After Implementation of a Nationwide Prenatal Screening Program in Denmark.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to estimate the proportion of women giving birth in two hospitals in the Region of Southern Denmark who did not attend the malformation scan and to elucidate the reasons for not participating.
methodsIn this register-based descriptive study, we used patient administration systems to identify women who had given birth at two Danish hospitals between March 2013 and January 2015. We then linked this information with the hospital database for fetal medicine (Astraia) to identify women who did not attend the malformation scan at week 18-20. We reviewed the medical records of these women to validate the data and to identify the reason for non-participation.
resultsOf 7690 births, 153 (2%) women did not attend the malformation scan. The main reason for non-participation was a passive deselection (81%). Most of these women were not present in Denmark at the time of the malformation scan (61%) and few women declined (8%).
conclusionsLess than 2% of a birth cohort in two major hospitals in Denmark did not attend the free offer of a malformation scan. Most of these women (81%) did not actively decide against the malformation scan. Very few (0.2%) declined the malformation scan. Non-attendance is not always due to an active decision made by the pregnant woman.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.