Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33316276›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2021

The evolution of prenatal care delivery guidelines in the United States.

Alex F Peahl, Joel D Howell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Associations between wildland fire smoke PMEnvironmental health : a global access science source · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The roles of COVID-19 pandemic exposure and telehealth in prenatal care access for rural and racial minority communities in the United States: A retrospective cohort study.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Alex F PeahlDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: alexfrie@med.umich.edu.
Joel D HowellInstitute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Departments of Internal Medicine and History, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic led to some of the most drastic changes in clinical care delivery ever seen in the United States. Almost overnight, providers of prenatal care adopted virtual visits and reduced visit schedules. These changes stood in stark contrast to the 12 to 14 in-person prenatal visit schedule that had been previously recommended for almost a century. As maternity care providers consider what prenatal care delivery changes we should maintain following the acute pandemic, we may gain insight from understanding the evolution of prenatal care delivery guidelines. In this paper, we start by sketching out the relatively unstructured beginnings of prenatal care in the 19th century. Most medical care fell within the domain of laypeople, and childbirth was a central feature of female domestic culture. We explore how early discoveries about "toxemia" created the groundwork for future prenatal care interventions, including screening of urine and blood pressure-which in turn created a need for routine prenatal care visits. We then discuss the organization of the medical profession, including the field of obstetrics and gynecology. In the early 20th century, new data increasingly revealed high rates of both infant and maternal mortalities, leading to a greater emphasis on prenatal care. These discoveries culminated in the first codification of a prenatal visit schedule in 1930 by the Children's Bureau. Surprisingly, this schedule remained essentially unchanged for almost a century. Through the founding of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, significant technological advancements in laboratory testing and ultrasonography, and calls of the National Institutes of Health Task Force for changes in prenatal care delivery in 1989, prenatal care recommendations continued to be the same as they had been in 1930-monthly visits until 28 weeks' gestation, bimonthly visits until 36 weeks' gestation, and weekly visits until delivery. However, coronavirus disease 2019 forced us to change, to reconsider both the need for in-person visits and frequency of visits. Currently, as we transition from the acute pandemic, we should consider how to use what we have learned in this unprecedented time to shape future prenatal care. Lessons from a century of prenatal care provide valuable insights to inform the next generation of prenatal care delivery.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansPregnancyPrenatal CareUnited Statesalloimmunizationantenatal careblood pressurecare deliverycoronavirus disease 2019 pandemicelectronic fetal monitoringhistorypreeclampsiaprenatal careproteinuriareduced visit schedulestelemedicineultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID33316276
PMCPMC9745905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.