Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36352278›Full record

ArticleMaternal and child health journal2023

Perceived Value of Prenatal Ultrasound Screening: A Survey of Pregnant Women.

Margot Kelly-Hedrick, Gail Geller, Angie C Jelin, Marielle S Gross

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. From Diagnosis to Decision-Fetal Limb Abnormalities.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Margot Kelly-HedrickDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, USA. margot.kellyhedrick@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2188-1244
Gail GellerBerman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
Angie C JelinDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Marielle S GrossBerman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USDuke University · USKennedy Krieger Institute · US

Funding

Single gene pathogenic variants associated with BEEC (Bladder Exstrophy, Epispadias, Complex)K23DK119949 · NIDDK · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI JELIN, ANGIE CHILD · 2019 to 2023
$1.1M
Johns Hopkins Howard A Kelly Alumni Society 371NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK119949
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRoutine prenatal screening ultrasounds primarily serve to diagnose major fetal anomalies which may prompt further testing and inform clinical decision-making, including possible pregnancy termination. Meanwhile, expectant parents may view the ultrasound experience and information gained differently from their clinicians. In this setting, how to best counsel patients, especially regarding the increasing findings of indeterminant clinical significance, is unclear. Greater understanding of women's views before undergoing their ultrasound may help to guide anticipatory counseling about the purpose of screening and interpretation of results.

methodsWe surveyed 289 patients presenting for scheduled prenatal ultrasounds at an academic tertiary care center. Discrete and open-ended questions assessed views surrounding the receipt of abnormal results and management of the pregnancy once fetal anomalies are detected. Qualitative responses were analyzed using thematic analysis.

resultsMost (95%) desired information about abnormal sonographic findings, although only half would consider pregnancy termination for anomalies. Reasons for wanting return of abnormal results included preparedness, valuing knowledge, and to a lesser extent, informing decision-making. When considering potential termination as a result of ultrasound findings, participants' rationales demonstrated deontological (seeing termination as inherently impermissible or permissible), relational (duties arising from the role of being a mother), and consequentialist (weighing harms and benefits) reasoning.

conclusionThis study highlights women's perceptions of prenatal ultrasounds as an inherently valuable source of information and preparedness, beyond their role in informing clinical decision-making. Identifying the ethical constructs underpinning patients' perspectives may help direct development of counseling tools responsive to individual needs and values regarding prenatal ultrasound findings.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedPregnant PeopleCounselingFemaleHumansPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisUltrasonography, PrenatalAbortionCounselingFetal abnormalitiesPrenatalQualitativeUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID36352278
PMCPMC9868096
OpenAlexW4308681938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.