↓ Skip to main content

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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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 profiles of 2 tweeters 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 129 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 18%
Researcher 21 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 20 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 15%
Psychology 17 13%
Unspecified 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 25 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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
#3,053,303
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,471
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,627
of 234,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#166
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 234,833 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.