ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Maternal decision-making for patients offered prenatal myelomeningocele repair.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To explore the decision-making process for patients offered prenatal myelomeningocele repair. Methods: This single-center prospective cohort study enrolled women who were candidates for prenatal myelomeningocele repair. Participants completed prenatal and postpartum interviews, which explored their understanding of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to prenatal surgery, their decision-making process, the factors influencing their choices, and their experiences with the surgery and recovery. Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts was performed. Results: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled, including 25 patients (89.2%) who elected prenatal myelomeningocele repair, one (3.6%) who chose postnatal repair, and two (7.1%) who chose pregnancy termination. All demonstrated good understanding of the treatment options and the potential fetal benefits of prenatal surgery. The majority noted risks of preterm delivery (82.1%), fetal loss (71.4%), and maternal surgical risks (78.6%). Future pregnancy implications noted included need for cesarean delivery (53.6%) and need to delay the next pregnancy (71.4%). Participants balanced hopes for improved outcomes from prenatal surgery with worries about surgical risks and logistical concerns. Patients also considered the presence or absence of family and employer support, financial limitations, and needs of siblings in their decisions. Many patients felt a strong obligation to try any procedures that might possibly help the baby, even at the risk of their own health. Conception of disability and beliefs about the acceptability of pregnancy termination also impacted how participants balanced factors. In postpartum interviews, participants who underwent prenatal surgery considered the prenatal surgery challenging but worth it in exchange for long-term benefits. Conclusions: Participants understood the treatment options for fetal myelomeningocele and balanced a broad array of factors in making treatment decisions. Physicians caring for these patients should understand the financial, social, and logistical realities impacting patients' choices, acknowledge families' concerns about the potential impact of disability, and be aware that some patients may be highly motivated to risk their own health to benefit their baby.
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.