N/A N=40 Randomized Single-blind Other

Coconut Oil vs. Commercial Ultrasound Gel In Obstetric Ultrasounds

Pregnancy, High Risk

Bottom Line

View on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05653362 ↗

Enrolled (actual)

Serious AEs

0.0%

Results posted

Jun 2023

Primary outcome: Primary: Quality of Ultrasound Images — 76.05; 76.14; 75.18; 76.35 score on a scale

Study Design & Population

Study type: Interventional
Phase: N/A
Interventions: Coconut Oil (Device); Commercial Ultrasound Gel (Device)
Age: Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex: Female
Sponsor: Indiana University
Primary completion: Dec 2021

Outcome Measures

Outcome	Result	p-value
PRIMARY Quality of Ultrasound Images	76.05; 76.14; 75.18; 76.35; 78.00; 79.13	—
SECONDARY Acceptability	4.08; 2.55; 4.83; 4.65; 4.50; 3.48	—

Summary

The goal of this randomized controlled trial is to compare the use of coconut oil with commercial ultrasound gel for obstetrical ultrasounds. The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. To evaluate the quality of ultrasound images obtained using coconut oil compared with commercial ultrasound gel. 2. To access patient acceptability of coconut oil as compared to commercial ultrasound gel. Participants will: 1. Allow a total of 6 study images to be obtained; 3 using coconut oil and 3 with commercial ultrasound gel. 2. Fill out a 10-question, 5-point Likert scale survey following their ultrasound with both coupling mediums to compare acceptability.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

Singleton pregnancy
Patients presenting for an anatomy or growth US
Patients assigned to the pre-determined ultrasound suite that will stay constant throughout the study so that the same ultrasound machine is used to obtain all images.

Exclusion Criteria

Allergy to coconut
Active inflammatory dermatologic conditions (dermatitis, eczema, or psoriasis)
Multiple gestation pregnancy

View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05653362). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.