Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35115741›Full record

ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2022

We Need to Improve Prenatal Screening Practices in Primary Obstetric Care: A Representative Data from a Fetal Medicine Unit in Coastal Karnataka.

Vidyashree Ganesh Poojari, Sanghamitra Paladugu, Akhila Vasudeva, Anjali Mundkur, Muralidhar V Pai, Pratap Kumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Vidyashree Ganesh PoojariDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Manipal, Karnataka India.
Sanghamitra PaladuguDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Manipal, Karnataka India.
Akhila VasudevaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Manipal, Karnataka India.
Anjali MundkurDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Manipal, Karnataka India.
Muralidhar V PaiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Manipal, Karnataka India.
Pratap KumarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Manipal, Karnataka India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe present observational data from the fetal medicine unit aim to identify gaps in prenatal screening modalities employed in the primary obstetric care population in coastal Karnataka.

methodsA retrospective observational study of all referrals to Fetal Medicine unit is over 2 years. For each fetal abnormality, we reviewed the literature to note the range of gestational age at which the abnormality should almost always be diagnosed. Taking this as standard, the gestational age at which each of these problems was diagnosed and referred was noted down. They were compared and analysed to understand the efficiency of prenatal screening practices in the referral population. The final perinatal outcome was also noted down in order to assess the impact on perinatal mortality/morbidity.

resultsA total of 277 cases were referred to fetal medicine unit. Two hundred twenty-eight cases (82.31%) were low risk pregnancies. Among 277 cases, 200 (72.2%) had structural abnormalities, 7 (2.5%) chromosomal/ genetic abnormalities, 61 (22.02%) isolated soft markers, and 9 (3.2%) twin-related problems. Detection rate of structural abnormalities was 33% at 14 weeks and 52.22% at 20 weeks, considering those anomalies usually diagnosed by these gestational age windows. The primary reason for delayed diagnosis was non-performance of ultrasound "on time", rather than missed diagnosis. Fifty-three per cent (106 out of 200) of all the fetal structural abnormalities were diagnosed beyond 20 weeks. Average gestational age at mid-trimester anomaly scan in this group was between 20 and 24 weeks. Sixty-one patients were referred due to isolated soft markers, 30 beyond 20 weeks. Eighty per cent of them did not have any aneuploidy screening in pregnancy.

conclusionPractice of fetal medicine hugely depends upon appropriate prenatal screening practices in the referral population. There is an urgent need to bring in standard protocols for Prenatal Screening across all the primary obstetric care providers, both in the public and private sectors. Considering the huge burden of delayed prenatal diagnosis in our country, the proposed revision of MTP bill is a welcome change in fast-growing field of fetal diagnosis and therapy.

Indexed as

Aneuploidy screeningAnomaly scanDelayed diagnosisFetal medicineMid-trimester targeted scanPrenatal diagnosisPrenatal screeningPrimary health carePrimary obstetric careSoft markers

Identifiers

PMID35115741
PMCPMC8804070

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.