ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Clinical audit for first-trimester ultrasound screening: a single center experience.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Artificial intelligence-assisted quality assessment of mid-trimester ultrasound examinations using large vision-language models.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
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
Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of 11-14-week fetal ultrasound images and physician scanning performance in a large general hospital to inform future quality improvement initiatives. Methods: A retrospective audit of ultrasound scans of normal fetuses at 11-14 weeks was conducted from November 2021 to March 2023 at a large tertiary general hospital in Beijing, China. Ten anatomical views were analyzed by two experienced assessors. Scan completeness and view completeness rates ≥ 70%, and logbook quality scores ≥ 42 (i.e., ≥ 70% of the maximum possible score), were considered acceptable. Results: The overall scan completeness of 256 logbooks was 77.4%. The scan completeness of 189 logbooks (73.8%) was acceptable. The median image quality score for the 256 logbooks was 37 (interquartile range, 28-46), and 96 logbooks (37.5%) had acceptable image quality, with a score ≥ 42. The scan completeness of 23 sonographers (63.9%) was > 70%. Sonographers with intermediate titles performed a higher average number of fetal ultrasound scans than those with senior titles (148 vs. 115 scans), and their scan completeness and logbook image quality scores were also superior (87% vs. 69% and 43.24 ± 6.38 vs. 31.62 ± 11.28, respectively; both Conclusion: The majority of sonographers met the expectations of the audit. Sonographers performing more fetal ultrasound scans may have an advantage in terms of scan completeness and image quality.
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.