ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2025
Perspectives on Fetal Sex and Prenatal Diagnosis of Differences of Sex Development Among Midwives.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perspectives on Fetal Sex and Prenatal Diagnosis of Differences of Sex Development Among Midwives.Prenatal diagnosis · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCell-free DNA screening has increased prenatal diagnosis/suspicion of fetal differences of sex development (DSD). This study explored how midwives discuss fetal sex and possible DSD with pregnant patients.
methodActive members of the American College of Nurse-Midwives were surveyed electronically to assess terminology use when discussing fetal sex and DSD, terminology influences, and comfort and preparedness levels when discussing a fetal DSD.
resultsMost participants (59.1%) reported a preference for use of gender-specific language (e.g., baby boy or baby girl) when disclosing predicted fetal sex results, often reflecting language used by patients. However, use of non-gendered language increased (40.9% vs. 76.2%) with suspicion of fetal DSD. Participants reported discomfort (41.9%) and unpreparedness (48.1%) when disclosing results related to genital variation. Additionally, some participants reported comfort with using terminology that may be inappropriate or outdated when discussing DSD (e.g., hermaphrodite, 16%). While a minority of participants (20.3%) reported having prior education about DSD, most participants (81.7%) desired education on this topic. Notably, participants with prior DSD education consistently expressed higher levels of preparedness for discussing DSD compared with those who did not receive this education.
conclusionFindings underscore the importance of DSD education for midwives to increase knowledge, comfort, and preparedness in this area of care.
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.