Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38630201›Full record

ReviewJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2024

Decision-making for congenital anomalies diagnosed during pregnancy: a narrative review.

Jillian Pecoriello, Anna- Grace Lilly, Dona Jalili, Clarisa Mendoza, Gwendolyn P Quinn, Christina A Penfield

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2024. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

6 authors.

Jillian PecorielloDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, 550 1stAvenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Anna- Grace LillyVanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Dona JaliliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, 550 1stAvenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Clarisa MendozaGeorgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Gwendolyn P QuinnDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, 550 1stAvenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA. Gwendolyn.Quinn@nyulangone.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4208-9889
Christina A PenfieldDivision of Maternal Fetal Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this narrative review was to assess the limited literature on fetal anomalies diagnosed in the second trimester of pregnancy and parental decision-making and identify sources of information deemed as facilitators and barriers to medical decisions.

methodsThis was a literature review of source material and information about fetal anomalies diagnosed in the second trimester of pregnancy, decision-making, decision tools or aids, and sources of information for anomalies. The search string used explored related peer-reviewed publications and systematic reviews between 2007 and 2024. We also reviewed references from publications meeting inclusion criteria. The search was conducted between June 2022 and February 2024. Exclusion criteria included conference abstracts, non-peer reviewed literature, and articles not available in English language. A total of 77 publications were identified by searching multiple databases using a predefined search string. The search encompassed full text articles from 2007 to 2024 and 11 full-text publications were ultimately included in the review. A list of 45 co-occurring keywords was generated from the included texts, with each keyword having a minimum of two co-occurrences.

resultsKey themes identified included (1) the role of the clinician and need for development of professional knowledge and empathy surrounding discussion of fetal anomalies with patients; (2) information gathering, with individuals reporting use of multiple strategies to obtain information; while the majority found information satisfying, they preferred more details on diagnosis, long-term outcomes of the fetus/child and management of the pregnancy or termination process; and (3) decision-making, the path and process of how individuals made decisions about the pregnancy including quality of life, future fertility, and seeking other people's experiences.

conclusionMany factors contribute to an individual's decision-making after a diagnosis of a fetal anomalies diagnosed in the second trimester of pregnancy, ranging from personal beliefs and goals to shared experiences of others and access to care. Understanding how sources of information may be deemed both as facilitators and barriers to different individuals during the decision-making process is important for healthcare providers in order to understand how to most effectively support patients. There is a dearth of information on training healthcare professionals to provide support to patients facing these decisions.

Indexed as

Congenital AbnormalitiesDecision MakingFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, SecondPrenatal DiagnosisDecision-makingFetal anomalyPatient educationReproductive counseling

Identifiers

PMID38630201
PMCPMC11143132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.