Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Best maternal point of visual focusing for minimizing pain and anxiety during second trimester genetic amniocentesis: a randomized trial.
Trial report 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 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of Virtual Reality for Pain Relief in Procedures Related to Obstetrics and Gynaecology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the best maternal point of visual focusing (PVF) for minimizing pain and anxiety during amniocentesis.
methodsA prospective randomized study was conducted to compare pain and anxiety levels assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS) on anticipated and perceived pain after amniocentesis between three groups of pregnant women who underwent amniocentesis with three different PVF. Differences between means of anticipated and perceived pain in each maternal PVF were also evaluated.
resultsA total of 105 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to covered maternal eyes, independent PVF and adapted visual reality (VR) groups, respectively. The mean VAS scores of anticipated pain and perceived pain were not significantly different between each different maternal PVF. The mean VAS of perceived pain was significantly lower than that of anticipated pain in all maternal PVF groups. The different mean VAS scores (95% confidence interval: CI) were 1.50 (0.28-2.71), p-value 0.017 in the maternal covered eyes group, 1.17 (0.16-2.18), p-value 0.025 in the independent PVF group and 0.96 (0.06-1.86), p-value 0.037 in the adapted VR group.
conclusionCovered maternal eyes, independent PVF and adapted VR can all be similarly recommended as the best maternal PVF during amniocentesis.
trial registrationSrinakharinwirot ethics committee (SWUEC/E/M-059/2565) and Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTRID20221022003 (19 October2022).
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.