ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019
Factors associated with the timing of the first prenatal ultrasound in Canada.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Universal Utilization of Optimally Timed First Obstetric Ultrasound Among Pregnant Women in a Low-Middle Income Country: A Multicenter Prospective Study.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2025Article
- Article
- Prenatal ultrasound utilization and associated factors among pregnant women attending antenatal care in south Wollo zone public hospitals, north east, Ethiopia, 2023.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Pregnancy complications and new-onset maternal autoimmune disease.International journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Prenatal Exposures, Diagnostic Outcomes, and Life Experiences of Children and Youths with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Article
- Screening for Alcohol Use in Pregnancy: a Review of Current Practices and Perspectives.International journal of mental health and addiction · 2023Article
- Review
- Quality of Antenatal Care for Women Who Experience Imprisonment in Ontario, Canada.JAMA network open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the factors associated with the timing of the first prenatal ultrasound in Canada.
methodsThis was a secondary data analysis of the Maternity Experiences Survey, a cross-sectional survey covering different aspects of pregnancy, labour, birth and the post-partum period. Bivariate and multivariate multinomial logistic regressions were performed to assess the relationship between timing of first prenatal ultrasound and different independent variables.
results68.4% of Canadian women received an optimally timed first prenatal ultrasound, 27.4% received early ultrasounds and 4.3% received late ultrasound. The highest prevalence of early ultrasound was in Ontario (33.3%) and the lowest was in Manitoba (13.3%). The highest prevalence of late ultrasound was found in Manitoba (12.1%) and the lowest was in British Columbia and Ontario (3.5% each). The highest prevalence of optimal timing of first prenatal ultrasound was in Quebec (77%) and the lowest was in Ontario (63.2%). Factors influencing the timing of ultrasound included: Early - maternal age < 20 (adjusted OR = 0.54, 95%CI:0.34-0.84), alcohol use during pregnancy (adjusted OR = 0.69, 95%CI:0.53-0.90), history of premature birth (adjusted OR = 1.41, 95%CI:1.06-1.89), multiparity (adjusted OR = 0.67, 95%CI:0.57-0.78), born outside of Canada (adjusted OR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.67-0.99), prenatal care in Newfoundland and Labrador (adjusted OR = 1.66, 95%CI:1.20-1.30), Nova Scotia (adjusted OR = 1.68, 95%CI:1.25-2.28), Ontario (adjusted OR = 2.16, 95%CI:1.76-2.65), Saskatchewan (adjusted OR = 1.50, 95%CI:1.05-2.14), Alberta (adjusted OR = 1.37, 95%CI:1.05-1.77) British Columbia (adjusted OR = 1.90, 95%CI:1.45-2.50) and Manitoba (adjusted OR = 0.66, 95%CI:0.45-0.98) Late - unintended pregnancy (adjusted OR = 1.89, 95%CI:1.38-2.59), born outside of Canada (adjusted OR = 1.75, 95%CI:1.14-2.68), prenatal care in Manitoba (adjusted OR = 2.88, 95%CI:1.64-5.05) and the Territories (adjusted OR = 4.50, 95%CI:2.27-8.93). An interaction between history of miscarriage and having 'other' prenatal care provider significantly affected timing of ultrasound (adjusted OR = 0.31, 95%CI:0.14-0.66).
conclusionOnly 68% of Canadian women received an optimally timed prenatal ultrasound which was influenced by several factors including province of prenatal care, maternal age and country of birth, and an interaction effect between prenatal care provider and history of miscarriage. These findings establish a baseline of factors influencing the timing of prenatal ultrasound in Canada, which can be built upon by future studies.
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.