Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30029609›Full record

ReviewReproductive health2018

Obstetric ultrasound use in low and middle income countries: a narrative review.

Eunsoo Timothy Kim, Kavita Singh, Allisyn Moran, Deborah Armbruster, Naoko Kozuki

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The FemTech revolution: Unlocking the potential of new technology for optimizing pregnancy outcomes in low- and middle-income countries and remote areas.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Eunsoo Timothy KimDepartment of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Dr, Chapel Hill, NC, 27516, USA.
Kavita SinghDepartment of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Dr, Chapel Hill, NC, 27516, USA. kavita_singh@unc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8670-2262
Allisyn MoranUS Agency for International Development, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20523, USA.
Deborah ArmbrusterUS Agency for International Development, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20523, USA.
Naoko KozukiInternational Rescue Committee, 1730 M St. NW Suite 505, Washington, DC, 20036, USA.

Funding

POPULATION STUDIEST32HD007168 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ELIZABETH A FRANKENBERG · 1985 to 2026
$13.8M
Research Services CoreP2CHD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KAREN B GUZZO · 2015 to 2026
$9.6M
National Institutes of Health P2C HD050924NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD050924NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007168USAID AID-OAA-L-14-00004 (MEASURE Evaluation)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough growing, evidence on the impact, access, utility, effectiveness, and cost-benefit of obstetric ultrasound in resource-constrained settings is still somewhat limited. Hence, questions around the purpose and the intended benefit as well as potential challenges across various domains must be carefully reviewed prior to implementation and scale-up of obstetric ultrasound technology in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). MAIN BODY: This narrative review discusses these issues for those trying to implement or scale-up ultrasound technology in LMICs. Issues addressed in this review include health personnel capacity, maintenance, cost, overuse and misuse of ultrasound, miscommunication between the providers and patients, patient diagnosis and care management, health outcomes, patient perceptions and concerns about fetal sex determination.

conclusionAs cost of obstetric ultrasound becomes more affordable in LMICs, it is essential to assess the benefits, trade-offs and potential drawbacks of large-scale implementation. Additionally, there is a need to more clearly identify the capabilities and the limitations of ultrasound, particularly within the context of limited training of providers, to ensure that the purpose for which an ultrasound is intended is actually feasible. We found evidence of obstetric uses of ultrasound improving patient management. However, there was evidence that ultrasound use is not associated with reducing maternal, perinatal or neonatal mortality. Patients in various studies reported to have both positive and negative perceptions and experiences related to ultrasound and lastly, illegal use of ultrasound for determining fetal sex was raised as a concern.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesObstetricsUltrasonography, PrenatalFemaleFetal DevelopmentHealth PersonnelHumansInfantInfant MortalityMaternal WelfarePregnancyPrenatal CareWorkforce

Identifiers

PMID30029609
PMCPMC6053827

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.