U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Balk EM, Konnyu KJ, Cao W, et al. Schedule of Visits and Televisits for Routine Antenatal Care: A Systematic Review [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2022 Jun. (Comparative Effectiveness Review, No. 257.)

Cover of Schedule of Visits and Televisits for Routine Antenatal Care: A Systematic Review

Schedule of Visits and Televisits for Routine Antenatal Care: A Systematic Review [Internet].

Show details

References

1.
Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJK. Provisional data for 2020. Vital Statistics Rapid Release; no 12 Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics doi: 10.15620/cdc:104993. 2021. [PubMed: 35157571] [CrossRef]
2.
American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for perinatal care, 8th edition. https://www​.acog.org​/clinical-information​/physician-faqs/-/media​/3a22e153b67446a6b31fb051e469187c​.ashx 2017.
3.
World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. https://apps​.who.int​/iris/bitstream/handle​/10665/250796/9789241549912-eng​.pdf?sequence=1. 2016. [PubMed: 28079998]
4.
Practice Bulletin No. 181: Prevention of Rh D Alloimmunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Aug;130(2):e57–e70. doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000002232. PMID: 28742673. [PubMed: 28742673] [CrossRef]
5.
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 190: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;131(2):e49–e64. doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000002501. PMID: 29370047. [PubMed: 29370047] [CrossRef]
6.
Prevention of Group B Streptococcal Early-Onset Disease in Newborns: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 797. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):e51–e72. doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000003668. PMID: 31977795. [PubMed: 31977795] [CrossRef]
7.
Children’s Bureau, US Department of Labor. Prenatal Care. https://www​.mchlibrary​.org/history/chbu/2265-1930.PDF. 1930.
8.
Alexander GR, Kotelchuck M. Assessing the role and effectiveness of prenatal care: history, challenges, and directions for future research. Public Health Rep. 2001 Jul–Aug;116(4):306–16. doi: 10.1093/phr/116.4.306. PMID: 12037259. [PMC free article: PMC1497343] [PubMed: 12037259] [CrossRef]
9.
Peahl AF, Howell J. The Evolution of Prenatal Care Delivery Guidelines in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(4):339–47. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.12.016. PMID: 33316276. [PMC free article: PMC9745905] [PubMed: 33316276] [CrossRef]
10.
Australian Government Department of Health. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Pregnancy Care. https://www​.health.gov​.au/resources/pregnancy-care-guidelines. 2019.
11.
Public Health Service Expert Panel on the Content of Prenatal Care, National Institutes of Health. Caring for Our Future: The Content of Prenatal Care. https://files​.eric.ed​.gov/fulltext/ED334018.pdf. 1989.
12.
Management of Pregnancy Work Group, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense. VA/DOD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Pregnancy, version 3.0. https://www​.healthquality​.va.gov/guidelines​/WH/up/VADoDPregnancyCPG4102018.pdf. 2018.
13.
Dowswell T, Carroli G, Duley L, et al. Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 16;2015(7):Cd000934. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000934.pub3. PMID: 26184394. [PMC free article: PMC7061257] [PubMed: 26184394] [CrossRef]
14.
Carter EB, Tuuli MG, Caughey AB, et al. Number of prenatal visits and pregnancy outcomes in low-risk women. J Perinatol. 2016 Mar;36(3):178–81. doi: 10.1038/jp.2015.183. PMID: 26658123. [PMC free article: PMC4767570] [PubMed: 26658123] [CrossRef]
15.
Gourevitch RA, Natwick T, Chaisson CE, et al. Variation in guideline-based prenatal care in a commercially insured population. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Mar;226(3):413.e1–.e19. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.09.038. PMID: 34614398. [PubMed: 34614398] [CrossRef]
16.
Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform. 2010 Nov;79(11):736–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.08.006. PMID: 20884286. [PubMed: 20884286] [CrossRef]
17.
Almathami HKY, Win KT, Vlahu-Gjorgievska E. Barriers and Facilitators That Influence Telemedicine-Based, Real-Time, Online Consultation at Patients’ Homes: Systematic Literature Review. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Feb 20;22(2):e16407. doi: 10.2196/16407. PMID: 32130131. [PMC free article: PMC7059083] [PubMed: 32130131] [CrossRef]
18.
Chang JE, Lai AY, Gupta A, et al. Rapid Transition to Telehealth and the Digital Divide: Implications for Primary Care Access and Equity in a Post-COVID Era. Milbank Q. 2021 Jun;99(2):340–68. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12509. PMID: 34075622. [PMC free article: PMC8209855] [PubMed: 34075622] [CrossRef]
19.
Peahl AF, Smith RD, Moniz MH. Prenatal care redesign: creating flexible maternity care models through virtual care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Sep;223(3):389.e1–.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.029. PMID: 32425200. [PMC free article: PMC7231494] [PubMed: 32425200] [CrossRef]
20.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1006–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005. PMID: 19631508. [PubMed: 19631508] [CrossRef]
21.
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008. PMID: 28935701. [PMC free article: PMC5833365] [PubMed: 28935701] [CrossRef]
22.
Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 May;97:39–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.023. PMID: 29248725. [PubMed: 29248725] [CrossRef]
23.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (https://sites​.google​.com/site/riskofbiastool​/welcome/rob-2-0-tool?authuser=0). BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. PMID: 31462531. [PubMed: 31462531] [CrossRef]
24.
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. [PMC free article: PMC5062054] [PubMed: 27733354]
25.
Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 May;97:49–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.020. PMID: 29247700. [PubMed: 29247700] [CrossRef]
26.
Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, et al. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000893. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000893. PMID: 30775016. [PMC free article: PMC6350750] [PubMed: 30775016] [CrossRef]
27.
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Checklist: 10 questions to help you make sense of a Qualitative research. https://casp-uk​.net/wp-content​/uploads/2018​/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018​.pdf.
28.
Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, et al. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Feb;14(1):26–33. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155. PMID: 15692000. [PMC free article: PMC1743963] [PubMed: 15692000] [CrossRef]
29.
Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:37. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-37. PMID: 22530986. [PMC free article: PMC3483008] [PubMed: 22530986] [CrossRef]
30.
Carroll C, Booth A, Leaviss J, et al. "Best fit" framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Mar 13;13:37. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-37. PMID: 23497061. [PMC free article: PMC3618126] [PubMed: 23497061] [CrossRef]
31.
Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9. PMID: 28637486. [PMC free article: PMC5480145] [PubMed: 28637486] [CrossRef]
32.
Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari M, et al. Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence When Assessing Health Care Interventions for the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: An Update. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. 2008. PMID: 24404627.
33.
Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari MT, et al. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Nov;68(11):1312–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.023. PMID: 25721570. [PubMed: 25721570] [CrossRef]
34.
Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3. PMID: 29384079. [PMC free article: PMC5791040] [PubMed: 29384079] [CrossRef]
35.
Colvin CJ, Garside R, Wainwright M, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 4: how to assess coherence. Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):13. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0691-8. PMID: 29384081. [PMC free article: PMC5791039] [PubMed: 29384081] [CrossRef]
36.
Glenton C, Carlsen B, Lewin S, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data. Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):14. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0692-7. PMID: 29384077. [PMC free article: PMC5791045] [PubMed: 29384077] [CrossRef]
37.
Noyes J, Booth A, Lewin S, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data. Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):4. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0693-6. PMID: 29384080. [PMC free article: PMC5791042] [PubMed: 29384080] [CrossRef]
38.
Berglund AC, Lindmark GC. Health services effects of a reduced routine programme for antenatal care. An area-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1998 Apr;77(2):193–9. doi: 10.1016/s0301-2115(97)00270-4. PMID: 9578278. [PubMed: 9578278] [CrossRef]
39.
Jewell D, Sharp D, Sanders J, et al. A randomised controlled trial of flexibility in routine antenatal care. Bjog. 2000 Oct;107(10):1241–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11614.x. PMID: 11028575. [PubMed: 11028575] [CrossRef]
40.
Marko KI, Ganju N, Krapf JM, et al. A Mobile Prenatal Care App to Reduce In-Person Visits: Prospective Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 May 1;7(5):e10520. doi: 10.2196/10520. PMID: 31042154. [PMC free article: PMC6658303] [PubMed: 31042154] [CrossRef]
41.
McDuffie RS, Jr., Beck A, Bischoff K, et al. Effect of frequency of prenatal care visits on perinatal outcome among low-risk women. A randomized controlled trial. Jama. 1996 Mar 20;275(11):847–51. PMID: 8596222. [PubMed: 8596222]
42.
McDuffie RS, Jr., Bischoff KJ, Beck A, et al. Does reducing the number of prenatal office visits for low-risk women result in increased use of other medical services? Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Jul;90(1):68–70. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00136-1. PMID: 9207816. [PubMed: 9207816] [CrossRef]
43.
Partridge CA, Holman JR. Effects of a reduced-visit prenatal care clinical practice guideline. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2005 Nov–Dec;18(6):555–60. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.18.6.555. PMID: 16322418. [PubMed: 16322418] [CrossRef]
44.
Ross-McGill H, Hewison J, Hirst J, et al. Antenatal home blood pressure monitoring: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Bjog. 2000 Feb;107(2):217–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11692.x. PMID: 10688505. [PubMed: 10688505] [CrossRef]
45.
Sikorski J, Wilson J, Clement S, et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing two schedules of antenatal visits: the antenatal care project. Bmj. 1996 Mar 2;312(7030):546–53. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7030.546. PMID: 8595286. [PMC free article: PMC2350357] [PubMed: 8595286] [CrossRef]
46.
Clement S, Candy B, Sikorski J, et al. Does reducing the frequency of routine antenatal visits have long term effects? Follow up of participants in a randomised controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Apr;106(4):367–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08276.x. PMID: 10426245. [PubMed: 10426245] [CrossRef]
47.
Henderson J, Roberts T, Sikorski J, et al. An economic evaluation comparing two schedules of antenatal visits. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000 Apr;5(2):69–75. doi: 10.1177/135581960000500203. PMID: 10947550. [PubMed: 10947550] [CrossRef]
48.
Walker DS, Koniak-Griffin D. Evaluation of a reduced-frequency prenatal visit schedule for low-risk women at a free-standing birthing center. J Nurse Midwifery. 1997 Jul–Aug;42(4):295–303. doi: 10.1016/s0091-2182(97)00027-x. PMID: 9277060. [PubMed: 9277060] [CrossRef]
49.
Ward N, Bayer S, Ballard M, et al. Impact of prenatal care with reduced frequency of visits in a residency teaching program. J Reprod Med. 1999 Oct;44(10):849–52. PMID: 10554744. [PubMed: 10554744]
50.
Tandon SD, Cluxton-Keller F, Colon L, et al. Improved adequacy of prenatal care and healthcare utilization among low-income Latinas receiving group prenatal care. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013 Dec;22(12):1056–61. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2013.4352. PMID: 24117000. [PubMed: 24117000] [CrossRef]
51.
Meiser RJ, Wlazlo TG, de Riese C. Prenatal Care Visit Frequency: The Patient Perspective. Journal of Medical Practice Management. 2021;36(4).
52.
Sanders J. Let’s start at the very beginning…women’s comments on early pregnancy care. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest. 2000;10(2):169–73.
53.
Sanders J, Somerset M, Jewell D, et al. To see or not to see? Midwives’ perceptions of reduced antenatal attendances for ‘low-risk’ women. Midwifery. 1999 Dec;15(4):257–63. doi: 10.1054/midw.1999.0183. PMID: 11216259. [PubMed: 11216259] [CrossRef]
54.
Sikorski J, Clement S, Wilson J, et al. A survey of health professionals’ views on possible changes in the provision and organisation of antenatal care. Midwifery. 1995 Jun;11(2):61–8. doi: 10.1016/0266-6138(95)90068-3. PMID: 7616860. [PubMed: 7616860] [CrossRef]
55.
Barbour KD, Richard Nelson, M. Sean Esplin, Michael Varner, Erin AS. Clark. A randomized trial of prenatal care using telemedicine for low-risk pregnancies: patient-related cost and time savings. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2017:S499.
56.
Butler Tobah YS, LeBlanc A, Branda ME, et al. Randomized comparison of a reduced-visit prenatal care model enhanced with remote monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec;221(6):638.e1–.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.06.034. PMID: 31228414. [PubMed: 31228414] [CrossRef]
57.
Duryea EL, Adhikari EH, Ambia A, et al. Comparison Between In-Person and Audio-Only Virtual Prenatal Visits and Perinatal Outcomes. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Apr 1;4(4):e215854. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5854. PMID: 33852002. [PMC free article: PMC8047732] [PubMed: 33852002] [CrossRef]
58.
Palmer KR, Tanner M, Davies-Tuck M, et al. Widespread implementation of a low-cost telehealth service in the delivery of antenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time-series analysis. Lancet. 2021 Jul 3;398(10294):41–52. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00668-1. PMID: 34217399. [PMC free article: PMC8248925] [PubMed: 34217399] [CrossRef]
59.
Pflugeisen BM, McCarren C, Poore S, et al. Virtual Visits: Managing prenatal care with modern technology. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2016 Jan–Feb;41(1):24–30. doi: 10.1097/nmc.0000000000000199. PMID: 26474477. [PubMed: 26474477] [CrossRef]
60.
Pflugeisen BM, Mou J. Patient Satisfaction with Virtual Obstetric Care. Matern Child Health J. 2017 Jul;21(7):1544–51. doi: 10.1007/s10995-017-2284-1. PMID: 28176034. [PubMed: 28176034] [CrossRef]
61.
Ridgeway JL, LeBlanc A, Branda M, et al. Implementation of a new prenatal care model to reduce office visits and increase connectivity and continuity of care: protocol for a mixed-methods study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 Dec 2;15:323. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0762-2. PMID: 26631000. [PMC free article: PMC4668747] [PubMed: 26631000] [CrossRef]
62.
Theiler RN, Butler-Tobah Y, Hathcock MA, et al. OB Nest randomized controlled trial: a cost comparison of reduced visit compared to traditional prenatal care. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Jan 21;21(1):71. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03557-3. PMID: 33478433. [PMC free article: PMC7818056] [PubMed: 33478433] [CrossRef]
63.
Futterman I, Rosenfeld E, Toaff M, et al. Addressing Disparities in Prenatal Care via Telehealth During COVID-19: Prenatal Satisfaction Survey in East Harlem. Am J Perinatol. 2021 Jan;38(1):88–92. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1718695. PMID: 33038898. [PMC free article: PMC7869038] [PubMed: 33038898] [CrossRef]
64.
Madden N, Emeruwa UN, Friedman AM, et al. Telehealth Uptake into Prenatal Care and Provider Attitudes during the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York City: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis. Am J Perinatol. 2020 Aug;37(10):1005–14. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1712939. PMID: 32516816. [PMC free article: PMC7416212] [PubMed: 32516816] [CrossRef]
65.
Mary M, Das P, Creanga AA. Perinatal telemedicine at lower-level birthing hospitals in Maryland. Lessons learned from a landscape analysis. Minerva Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Sep 9. doi: 10.23736/s2724-606x.21.04933-2. PMID: 34498838. [PubMed: 34498838] [CrossRef]
66.
Peahl AF, Powell A, Berlin H, et al. Patient and provider perspectives of a new prenatal care model introduced in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Apr;224(4):384.e1–.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.10.008. PMID: 33039393. [PMC free article: PMC7543890] [PubMed: 33039393] [CrossRef]
67.
Quinn LM, Olajide O, Green M, et al. Patient and Professional Experiences With Virtual Antenatal Clinics During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a UK Tertiary Obstetric Hospital: Questionnaire Study. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Aug 31;23(8):e25549. doi: 10.2196/25549. PMID: 34254940. [PMC free article: PMC8409501] [PubMed: 34254940] [CrossRef]
68.
Stanhope KK, Piper K, Goedken P, et al. Quality and satisfaction with care following changes to the structure of obstetric care during the COVID-19 pandemic in a safety-net hospital in Georgia: Results from a mixed-methods study. J Natl Med Assoc. 2022 Jan 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jnma.2021.12.017. PMID: 35039177. [PMC free article: PMC8759626] [PubMed: 35039177] [CrossRef]
69.
Santo L, Okeyode T. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2018 National Summary Tables. Available from: https://www​.cdc.gov/nchs​/data/ahcd/namcs_summary​/2018-namcs-web-tables-508.pdf. 2019.
70.
Yang J, D’Souza R, Kharrat A, et al. COVID-19 pandemic and population-level pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in general population: A living systematic review and meta-analysis (Update#2: November 20, 2021). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022 Mar;101(3):273–92. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14318. PMID: 35088409. [PMC free article: PMC9564547] [PubMed: 35088409] [CrossRef]
71.
Rowe S, Karkhaneh Z, MacDonald I, et al. Systematic review of the measurement properties of indices of prenatal care utilization. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 Mar 18;20(1):171. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-2822-5. PMID: 32183724. [PMC free article: PMC7079477] [PubMed: 32183724] [CrossRef]
72.
Phillippi JC. Women’s perceptions of access to prenatal care in the United States: a literature review. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2009 May–Jun;54(3):219–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jmwh.2009.01.002. PMID: 19410214. [PubMed: 19410214] [CrossRef]
73.
Tucker Edmonds B, Mogul M, Shea JA. Understanding low-income African American women’s expectations, preferences, and priorities in prenatal care. Fam Community Health. 2015 Apr–Jun;38(2):149–57. doi: 10.1097/fch.0000000000000066. PMID: 25739062. [PubMed: 25739062] [CrossRef]
74.
Fryer K, Delgado A, Foti T, et al. Implementation of Obstetric Telehealth During COVID-19 and Beyond. Matern Child Health J. 2020 Sep;24(9):1104–10. doi: 10.1007/s10995-020-02967-7. PMID: 32564248. [PMC free article: PMC7305486] [PubMed: 32564248] [CrossRef]
75.
Moyer CA, Compton SD, Kaselitz E, et al. Pregnancy-related anxiety during COVID-19: a nationwide survey of 2740 pregnant women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2020 Dec;23(6):757–65. doi: 10.1007/s00737-020-01073-5. PMID: 32989598. [PMC free article: PMC7522009] [PubMed: 32989598] [CrossRef]
76.
Peahl AF, Gourevitch RA, Luo EM, et al. Right-Sizing Prenatal Care to Meet Patients’ Needs and Improve Maternity Care Value. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;135(5):1027–37. doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000003820. PMID: 32282594. [PubMed: 32282594] [CrossRef]
77.
Peahl AF, Zahn CM, Turrentine M, et al. The Michigan Plan for Appropriate Tailored Healthcare in Pregnancy Prenatal Care Recommendations. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Oct 1;138(4):593–602. doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000004531. PMID: 34352810. [PubMed: 34352810] [CrossRef]
78.
Yao XI, Wang X, Speicher PJ, et al. Reporting and Guidelines in Propensity Score Analysis: A Systematic Review of Cancer and Cancer Surgical Studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 Aug 1;109(8). doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw323. PMID: 28376195. [PMC free article: PMC6059208] [PubMed: 28376195] [CrossRef]

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (3.2M)

Other titles in this collection

Related information

  • PMC
    PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed
    Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...