Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37876768›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2023

Intrapartum ultrasound and mother acceptance: A study with informed consent and questionnaire.

Antonio Malvasi, Gianluca Raffaello Damiani, Edoardo DI Naro, Amerigo Vitagliano, Miriam Dellino, Reuven Achiron, Kosmas Ioannis, Antonella Vimercati, Maria Gaetani, Ettore Cicinelli and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

16 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Antonio MalvasiDepartment of Biomedical and Human Oncological Science (DIMO), 1st Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Gianluca Raffaello DamianiDepartment of Biomedical and Human Oncological Science (DIMO), 1st Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Edoardo DI NaroDepartment of Biomedical and Human Oncological Science (DIMO), 1st Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Amerigo VitaglianoDepartment of Biomedical and Human Oncological Science (DIMO), 1st Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Miriam DellinoDepartment of Biomedical and Human Oncological Science (DIMO), 1st Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Reuven AchironPrenatal Diagnostic Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
Kosmas IoannisSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Antonella VimercatiDepartment of Biomedical and Human Oncological Science (DIMO), 1st Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Maria GaetaniDepartment of Biomedical and Human Oncological Science (DIMO), 1st Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Ettore CicinelliDepartment of Biomedical and Human Oncological Science (DIMO), 1st Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Marina VinciguerraDepartment of Biomedical and Human Oncological Science (DIMO), 1st Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Ilaria RicciDepartment of Biomedical and Human Oncological Science (DIMO), 1st Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Andrea TinelliLaboratory of Human Physiology, Phystech BioMed School, Faculty of Biological & Medical Physics, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (State University), 141701 Moscow, Russia.
Giorgio Maria BaldiniMOMO Fertilife-IVF Center, 76011 Bisceglie, Italy.
Erica SilvestrisGynecologic Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II", 70124 Bari, Italy.
Giuseppe TrojanoDepartment of Maternal and Child Gynecologic Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II", 70124 Bari, ItalyHealth, "Madonna delle Grazie" Hospital ASM, 75100 Matera, Italy.
University of Bari Aldo Moro · ITIstituto Tumori Bari · ITOspedale degli Infermi · ITOspedale Madonna Delle Grazie · ITOspedale Veris Delli Ponti Scorrano · ITSheba Medical Center · ILTel Aviv University · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Intrapartum ultrasound (IU) is used in the delivery ward; even if IU monitors the labouring women, it could be perceived as a discomfort and even as an" obstetric violence", because it is a young technique, not often well "accepted". A group of clinicians aimed at obtain an informed consent from patients, prior to perform a translabial ultrasound (TU). The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptance of both translabial and transabdominal IU. Methods: In this study, performed at the University Hospital of Bari (Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology), were enrolled 103 patients in the first or second stage of labor in singleton cephalic presentation. A statistical frequency and an association analysis were performed. As a significant result, we consider the peace of mind/satisfaction and the" obstetric violence". IU was performed both transabdominal and translabial to determine the presentation, head positions, angle of progression and head perineum distance. During the first and second stage of labor, the ASIUG questionnaires (Apulia study intrapartum ultrasonography group) were administered. Results: 74 (71, 84%) patients underwent IU and 29 had a vaginal examination (28, 15%). Significant less "violence" has been experienced with a IU (73 out 74/98, 65%) and only one person (1 /1, 35%) recorded that. On the contrary, 10 patients (10/29) perceived that "violence" (34, 48%) while 19 (65, 52%) did not respond on a similar way, after a vaginal examination (VE). More patients felt satisfaction (71 out 74/95, 95%) with the use of IU and only 3 (3/4, 05%) felt unease. A different picture was evident in the vaginal examination group. Only 17 patients (17 out 29/58, 62%) felt comfort while 12 (41, 38%) felt unease. Conclusions: In our study, IU use is well accepted by most of patients, because it could reassure women about their fetal condition. Moreover, they can see the fetus on the screen, while the obstetrician is performing the US and this is important for a visual feedback, in comparison with the classical VE.

Indexed as

DiscomfortInformed consentIntrapartum ultrasonographyLabourObstetric violenceVisual biofeedback

Identifiers

PMID37876768
PMCPMC10590726
OpenAlexW4387520068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.