ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Retrospective cohort of prenatal home ultrasound utilization and maternal-neonatal outcomes.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Teleultrasound in obstetrics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Self-administered tele-ultrasound in fetal telemonitoring: Prospective study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTelehealth solutions, including ultrasound technology, are sought as a modality to enhance prenatal. We aimed to evaluate the utilization of a self-operated home ultrasound service in a real-world large cohort, comparing users vs. non-users. This service provides a handheld, app-connected ultrasound device for remote basic fetal monitoring, with its use determined at the discretion of the patient as a supplement - rather than a replacement - to standard prenatal care.
methodsRetrospective analysis comparing maternal and neonatal outcomes among users versus non-users of the home ultrasound service, between January 2020 and December 2022. Primary outcome measures were preterm delivery and a composite adverse neonatal outcome. Confounders were balanced between the groups using nearest neighbour matching with propensity scores. Multivariable analyses including the confounders were conducted in matched cohorts to obtain doubly robust estimates. A sensitivity analysis included those who began using the device before 22 gestational weeks and continued for more than 10 weeks. Safety was assessed by identifying any maternal, obstetrical, or neonatal complications plausibly linked to device use.
resultsThe study compared two cohorts; the exposed cohort of 4,460 pregnant women using Clalit's home ultrasound service (users), and the control (non-users) cohort of 102,707 pregnant women with an equal HMO insurance status. Users had higher socioeconomic scores, were more primiparous and had a higher incidence of chronic disease and pregnancy complications. Preterm birth rates and adverse neonatal outcomes did not differ between groups. Device utilization, both overall and stratified by actual utilization degree, was safe and not associated with any maternal, obstetrical or neonatal adverse pregnancy outcomes.
conclusionsA self-operated home ultrasound device, during the second and third trimester, is safe and not significantly associated with any pregnancy adverse event or neonatal complications.
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.