ArticleMethodsX2026
Assessing the impact of routine prenatal ultrasound on pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in low-resource settings: A systematic review protocol.
Article in MethodsX, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Obstetric ultrasound is integral to pregnancy care, yet access remains limited in low-resource settings, potentially contributing to preventable maternal and perinatal mortality. Objective: To systematically identify, critically appraise and synthesise evidence on the impact of routine prenatal ultrasound on pregnancy, maternal and perinatal outcomes in low-resource settings. Eligibility criteria: Pregnant women in low-income countries (World Bank GNI per capita ≤US$1135) or low-resource facilities in lower-middle-income countries. Eligible studies compare routine prenatal ultrasound against any setting where ultrasound is not systematically offered to all pregnant women, including no ultrasound access, selective ultrasound only, or ultrasound available but not routinely provided. All comparator types will be included in the primary pooled analysis, with comparator type explored as a pre-specified subgroup. Information sources: Seven databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Maternity and Infant Care, Global Index Medicus) searched from January 1980 to 30 June 2026, with no language restriction. Risk of bias: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklist for randomised trials; Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. Synthesis: Random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian-Laird); narrative synthesis following SWiM where pooling is not feasible. Certainty of evidence: GRADE applied across five domains for co-primary outcomes (perinatal mortality; maternal mortality) and all secondary outcomes. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023474088.
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.