↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

High feedback versus low feedback of prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour in pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
Title
High feedback versus low feedback of prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour in pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007208.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashraf F Nabhan, Nasreen Aflaifel

Abstract

Prenatal ultrasound is one of many techniques used in screening and diagnosis. It gives parents instant access to the images of the fetus. Receiving information promotes knowledge and understanding, but it may also increase maternal anxiety. To compare high feedback versus low feedback during prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (12 May 2015), the Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 12 May 2015), and the ISRCTN Registry (12 May 2015). We handsearched citation lists of relevant publications. We did not apply any language or date restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of high feedback (women can see the monitor screen and receive detailed visual and verbal explanations) versus low feedback (women can not see the monitor screen and women are given only a summary statement of the scan) during prenatal ultrasound. The primary outcome measure was maternal state anxiety. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. We have expressed results as risk ratio (RR) or mean differences (MD), together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included four studies (365 women). Three RCTs (346 participants) reported the effect of high versus low feedback during ultrasound on state anxiety scores (mean difference (MD) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.58 to 2.43; participants = 346; three studies, low quality evidence). Two trials (148 participants) reported women's views of the level of feedback. They do not show that women in the high feedback groups are more likely to choose very positive adjectives to describe their feelings after the scan (risk ratio (RR) 3.30; 95% CI 0.73 to 14.85). Women who had a high feedback during ultrasound were more likely to stop smoking during pregnancy (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.25 to 6.86; participants = 129; one study; low quality evidence) and to avoid alcohol during pregnancy (RR 2.96, 95% CI 1.15 to 7.60; participants = 129; one study; low quality evidence). Downgrading of evidence was based on the unclear risk of bias of included studies, wide CI crossing the line of no effect or presence of heterogeneity. There is insufficient evidence to support either high or low feedback during a prenatal ultrasound to reduce maternal anxiety and promote health behaviour.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 168 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 15%
Student > Bachelor 25 15%
Student > Master 25 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 30 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 27%
Psychology 33 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 38 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2016.
All research outputs
#5,101,654
of 18,026,194 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,486
of 11,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,157
of 242,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#196
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,026,194 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,808 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,519 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.