Safety of Ultrasonography in Pregnancy - Article Example

? Research Article Analysis The question of how harmful ultrasonography can be lingers in majority of pregnant women. Accordingly, many researches have been conducted with an aim of finding out the effects of an obstetric ultrasound to both the mother and the fetus in various samples. Consequently, several research literatures have been published concerning the same issue. The question that is of concern to most people is how these researches are analyzed and if they really meet the proper scientific research. The paper aims to critique one sample of a research on the safety of an obstetric scan, which was done by Allen T. and fellow researchers in 2009 and published on electronic media-pubmed. Scientific research has immensely contributed to the medical field. Researches done in the past and in the recent times have employed proper scientific guidelines to ensure their validity in different contexts. Although it would be tempting to assume that all research available is done by qualified individuals hence is up to standard, some of them require a critical analysis to ascertain their validity. This paper analyses a research study by Allen T. and fellow researchers published in 2009 in pubmed. The paper first highlights the appropriate research methodology that is generally used and then gives a thorough critique of the study. It goes on to assess the validity of the research. Finally, the paper briefly discusses the various controversies on the question of the safety of an obstetric ultrasound and then gives a conclusive summarized critique of the study. In research, collection of data is an art and a key step that must be perfected. There are various methods that can be employed in data collection during research. In literature searches, the researcher collects documented information from various published literatures that include annual reports, journals, magazines, newspapers and online databases. Others include personal interviews, focused groups, email surveys etc. However, scientific research is done following strict research methods with specific guidelines. The basic elements of a research include validity, which is assessed by four different measures. An ideal research should have construct validity, statistical conclusion validity, internal and external validity. There are four types of research studies- observational research, correlation research, experimental research and quasi experiments. The five sampling techniques include convenience sampling, random simple sampling, systematic sampling, stratified sampling and cluster sampling (Dane, 2008) In this research study, the researcher collected information from internet databases by searching the various online databases. One notable undoing to this kind of technique is that it is more effective when the study parameter is not scientific. While the question in research is a science based question, the method of data collection does not follow the scientific research standards. Therefore the information collected is bound to have errors. In addition to that, the research does not give a working hypothesis. Any reader of the article fails to recognize the initial view of the person(s) doing the research. A good and measurable hypothesis helps elaborate the whole objective of the research. It would be expected that a hypothesis such as ‘’Obstetric ultrasound is safe to the mother and the fetus” would give an insight into the objective of the research, as well as qualify the research as a question of real concern (Kothari, 2009). The research fails to highlight essential background information. A standard scientific research would no doubt in which it discusses the topic in research. It should have highlighted the controversies and uncertainties surrounding the use of obstetric ultrasound. Additionally, to bring to light the statistical facts involving on whom an obstetric ultrasound is performed in various countries. Of more help, also, would be highlight of the various national policies as far as obstetric ultrasound scans are concerned. Apart from these elements of the background, the research ought to have conceptualized itself in history and literature. For instance, it should have mentioned the various researches done on the same and their limitations or failures. It should also have cited some of the most significant literature materials published concerning the safety of an obstetric ultrasound (Linda, 2002). The choice of appropriate measures is very significant to any research. The measures described in this research are too broad. It should have gone further to describe which specific maternal adverse effects were looked for and the perinatal effects that were expected. It should further have described the measures that were used to asses childhood growth and the level of metal functioning. The expected childhood malignancies should also have been fully covered. Finally, the relationship between the various measures and the gestational age at the time of the scan should have been brought out very clearly. In the same regard, the measures should have had in mind the maternal age, and various supplements omitted or ingested during pregnancy when assessing the outcomes of the scan to the fetus. A concise procedure should have been described and followed. In the procedure, the various factors that could interfere with appropriate measurements should have been taken care of. Furthermore, a sample of patients on whom no ultrasound scan was done should have been included to act as a control sample. The number of scans done during pregnancy should have been documented. The procedure should also have described the various preparations on various patients, the monitoring and the follow-up. Finally, the method of data collection should have been highlighted. Concerning this article, a comparison of various procedures should have been done. A focused analysis of this research reveals some deficiencies in validity. As far as statistical conclusion validity is concerned, there is no statistical evidence given for the safety of obstetric ultrasound as far as the measured parameters are concerned except for the issue of non-right-handedness in boys. Construct validity is clearly not asserted. This is because, while the measured parameters are truly of concern as far as safety of an obstetric scan is concerned, they are too broad and cannot be used to conclusively rule out any hazardous effect that may be caused by the scan. The research is invalid as far as internal validity is concerned. It does not account for any wrongly informative literatures and neither does it account for any time frame or intrusions into the procedure. External validity was appropriate as various countries were sampled (McNeill, 2005). Sampling techniques applied were appropriate for this kind of research. However, the various more appropriate scientific sampling techniques could not be applied .This is firstly because the samples being chosen are from online databases and not physical samples. Most scientific researches use the stratified sampling method because it takes into considerations the variations in phenotypes, age and gender. We cannot ascertain the techniques used by the various primary researchers from this research. We are also concerned of any sampling errors that could have occurred in the primary researches. It is worth noting that sampling errors in this kind of research study are very minimal because it is electronic. This is one of the few advantages of online research over physical researches (Dane, 2008). Generally, radiological procedures have over time been feared by patients due to a lot of speculations concerning the associated side effects. An obstetric ultrasound is so important that at times it may be the only investigation necessary to rescue a pregnant mother from death. Obstetric ultrasound is used to make a definitive diagnosis of some fatal pregnancy related maternal conditions like placenta praevia. Despite its significance, its use continues to face resistance based on the same speculations of having harmful side effects to the fetus and the mother. The most feared side effect is that mental retardation and compromise in neurological development. While most scientists have maintained that the scan is safe and has no side effects, some have increased advocacy against its use. Indeed, some obstetricians refrain from doing regular scans on their patients. The long awaited definite conclusion to this matter has been the subject of many scientific researches including the research I have analyzed here. Any good scientific research is expected to meet some scientific expectations. In view of those expectations, there are many reasons why this research cannot have a conclusive statement on the safety of an obstetric scan. Firstly, the research is not primary. It was not done on a physical scientifically formulated acquired sample. Besides these, it does not describe the inclusionary and exclusionary criteria of the samples. Secondly, it lacks a working hypothesis. In addition, it does not have an element of a control sample which almost indispensable in any research. It does not follow any scientific category of research study methods (observational research, experimental research, co relational research, quasi-experiments). The research does not describe a clear scientific procedure. There is no element of control of external interference with the procedure. There is also no element of detailed comparison. There is no follow-up either and the research does not show any element of interaction with the sample patients. Most importantly, this study fails to prove its construct, internal and statistical conclusion validity. Finally, it gives a vague conclusion which is more of an opinion as evidenced by the word ‘appears’. This research, therefore, is non-scientific and cannot hold water. Reference Dane, F. C. (2008). Research methods. New York: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.Print Kothari, C. R. (2009). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. Mumbai: New Age International.Print Linda Groat, D. W. (2002). Architectural Research Methods. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Print McNeill, P. (2005). Research Methods. London: Routledge.Print Read More