ArticleInternational journal of women's health2010
Risk adjustment in maternity care: the use of indirect standardization.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is attending birth dying out? Trends in obstetric care provision among primary care physicians in British Columbia.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
- Cesarean delivery rates among family physicians versus obstetricians: a population-based cohort study using instrumental variable methods.CMAJ open · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAnnual US national rates of family physicians providing maternity care are decreasing and rates of cesarean delivery are increasing. Family physicians tend to have lower cesarean delivery rates than obstetrician specialists, but this association is usually explained by an assumed lower pre-delivery risk for cesarean delivery. This study was developed to compare the estimated risk of cesarean delivery in patients of the two specialties.
methodsA retrospective cohort study within an urban teaching hospital compared 100 family- physician treated subjects to 300 subjects treated by obstetrician-specialists. Risk factors for cesarean delivery were identified, and an indirect standardization procedure was used to compare the pre-38 week of gestation risk of cesarean delivery in the two groups.
resultsThe patients treated by family physicians had a projected pre-38 week of gestation risk of cesarean delivery (17.4%) that was similar to the actual rate of cesarean delivery in the obstetrician-specialist group (16.7%). The Standardized Cesarean Delivery Ratio was 1.04.
conclusionLower cesarean delivery rates provided by family physicians may not be simply due to case-mix issues. Additional studies comparing the pre-delivery estimation of cesarean delivery risk would be helpful in measuring the relative levels of obstetric risk of patients treated by different maternity-care provider types.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.