ArticleCanada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada2021
Suboptimal prenatal screening of
Article in Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sexually transmitted infections and bacterial vaginosis and preterm birth in pregnant people living with HIV: A population-based cohort study.International journal of STD & AIDS · 2025Article
- Acceptability, feasibility, equity and resource use for prenatal screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea: A systematic review.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au CanadaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Canadian Paediatric Society no longer recommends the use of universal ocular prophylaxis with erythromycin ointment to prevent ophthalmia neonatorum. Screening for
objectiveThe aims of this study were to assess prenatal screening rates of
methodsThe list of all women who delivered at a tertiary care hospital in Montréal, Québec, between April 2015 and March 2016, was cross-referenced with the list of samples tested for
resultsOf 2,688 mothers, 2,245 women were screened at least once, but only 2,206 women had at least one valid
conclusionSuboptimal screening rates for
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.