ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018
Use of pregnancy ultrasound before the 19th week scan: an analytical study based on the Icelandic Childbirth and Health Cohort.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and barriers to second-trimester fetal anomaly scan utilization among pregnant women in Jordan: a cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Article
- Birthweight and gestational age in the Faroe Islands: A comparison between birthweight and gestational age in the Faroe Islands and other Nordic countries.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Article
- Ensemble Transfer Learning for Fetal Head Analysis: From Segmentation to Gestational Age and Weight Prediction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimUse of ultrasound scans early in pregnancy is increasing, but we have limited knowledge about the actual prevalence, associated decision-making and impact on expectant women/couples in a general population. The aim of this study was to document the use of, and experiences related to, foetal scanning before the recommended 19th week scan among pregnant women in Iceland. POPULATION AND
methodsThe data come from the Icelandic Childbirth and Health Cohort Study 2009-11. A total of 1111 women attending prenatal care at primary care health centres answered questionnaires before mid-pregnancy and after birth, including questions about the number of scanning procedures during pregnancy. These might include consumer-initiated 'pregnancy confirmation scans,' scans for clinical reasons, and screening for foetal anomalies in week 11-14 which is optional in Iceland. The questionnaires also addressed parental decision-making associated with the 11-14 week screening, perception of the pre-screening information, reasons for attending or declining, and whether/how early foetal screening affected the women's concerns related to the unborn child.
resultsA total of 95% of the women reported some kind of foetal ultrasound scanning before the 19th week scan, and 64% reported two or more scans in this period. 78% of the women chose to participate in screening for foetal anomalies in week 11-14. Decision-making in relation to this screening was mainly informed by sources outside the healthcare system, and many women characterized participation as 'self-evident'. Most women felt they got sufficient information about the scope of screening, whilst information regarding potential downsides and risks was frequently perceived as insufficient. Most women who chose the 11-14 week screening reported a reassuring or neutral effect, whilst 10% of the women reported that it increased their concerns related to their unborn child.
conclusionsUltrasound scans in the first half of pregnancy are in high use in Iceland and have apparently become part of a broader pregnancy culture, encompassing both high- and low-risk pregnancies. Whether this is a favourable development or to some extent represents unwarranted medicalization, can be debated. More balanced information might be provided prior to early screening for foetal anomalies.
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.