ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2022
Changes in prenatal testing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global and Chinese co-occurrence patterns association with socio-demographic index for congenital heart disease and Down syndrome, 1990-2021.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Early Third-Trimester Syphilis Screening Adherence Among Medicaid Recipients in New York City, 2020-2022.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2026Article
- The impact of COVID-19 infection on neonatal birth weight and outcomes.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted healthcare delivery, including prenatal care. The study objective was to assess if timing of routine prenatal testing changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Retrospective observational cohort study using claims data from a regional insurer (Highmark) and electronic health record data from two academic health systems (Penn Medicine and Yale New Haven) to compare prenatal testing timing in the pre-pandemic (03/10/2018-12/31/2018 and 03/10/2019-12/31/2019) and early COVID-19 pandemic (03/10/2020-12/31/2020) periods. Primary outcomes were second trimester fetal anatomy ultrasounds and gestational diabetes (GDM) testing. A secondary analysis examined first trimester ultrasounds. Results: The three datasets included 31,474 pregnant patients. Mean gestational age for second trimester anatomy ultrasounds increased from the pre-pandemic to COVID-19 period (Highmark 19.4 vs. 19.6 weeks; Penn: 20.1 vs. 20.4 weeks; Yale: 18.8 vs. 19.2 weeks, all Conclusion: While some prenatal testing happened later in pregnancy during the pandemic, pregnant patients continued to receive appropriately timed testing. Despite disruptions in care delivery, prenatal screening remained a priority for patients and providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.