ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026
Introduction of robot-assisted obstetric ultrasound in rural Northern Norway.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Teleultrasound in obstetrics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2026Pooled it
- AI-Guided Remission: Protocol for a Conversational Agent (Chatbot) for Dosing Activity and Footwear Progression After Diabetic Limb Reconstruction.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Introduction of robot-assisted obstetric ultrasound in rural Northern Norway.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRobot-assisted obstetric ultrasound is a method where the obstetrician in the hospital can control an ultrasound probe and assess biometric measurements and biophysical observations of a fetus, at a remote location. This two-aimed study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of robot-assisted ultrasound compared to traditional ultrasound and explores patient experiences. MATERIAL AND
methodsForty-six middle-risk pregnant women in 2nd and 3rd trimester were recruited. Thirty women were recruited for an intra observer study to compare the quality of the robot-assisted obstetrical ultrasound and traditional obstetric ultrasound. Fifteen traditional ultrasound examinations and 15 robotic-assisted ultrasound examinations were performed and head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC), femur length (FL), amniotic fluid index (AFI), Doppler in the umbilical arteria, and biophysical observations of the fetus were registered. Another 16 women were recruited to a mixed design study aiming to explore the women's experiences with the robot-assisted ultrasound method. These women completed a questionnaire of 20 questions about patient experience, using a 5-point Likert scale. Two of them also participated in qualitative interviews to provide deeper insights.
resultsBiometric measurements showed excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.990-0.993) with acceptable limits of agreement. Twenty questions about patient experiences were asked and 94% of the women scored for highest level of satisfaction. Interviews revealed the value of avoiding long-distance travel when image quality and digital communication experiences are good.
conclusionsRobot-assisted obstetric ultrasound is a reliable alternative to traditional ultrasound for middle-risk pregnancies in rural areas, offering high diagnostic accuracy and patient satisfaction. Most women would agree to a robotic ultrasound scan examination again. The patients' experiences are thus in line with the Norwegian governments' intention to use technology to secure equality in health care in rural areas.
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.