ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2015
Does the presence of learners affect family medicine obstetric outcomes?
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variation in caesarean section rates according to the Robson classification in four low- and middle-income countries: a meta-analysis of groups 1 to 4.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
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
objectiveTo compare patient outcomes and complications before and after involvement of family medicine residents in intrapartum care.
designSecondary data analysis.
settingLondon, Ont.
participantsObstetric patients of a family physician with a special interest in obstetrics.
main outcome measuresTotal number of births attended and births missed, as well as rates of inductions, augmentations for dystocia, augmentations for prelabour ruptured membranes, types of births (ie, normal vaginal, vacuum-assisted, low and outlet forceps deliveries; cesarean sections; and obstetrician-assisted vaginal births), and perineal outcomes (ie, intact; first-, second-, third-, or fourth-degree tears; episiotomies; and episiotomies with third-or fourth-degree extensions).
resultsDuring the period of time when family medicine residents were involved in intrapartum care, women sustained slightly more second-degree tears, and more cesarean sections were performed. Fewer women had vacuum-assisted births or unmedicated births. There were no significant differences in rates of normal vaginal births, low and outlet forceps deliveries, and perineal trauma (other than second-degree tears) including episiotomies.
conclusionWomen experienced slightly more second-degree tears when residents were involved in their deliveries. The increased number of second-degree tears might be because of residents' limited experience in providing intrapartum care. More important, there was no increase in other serious perineal trauma or episiotomy when residents provided supervised intrapartum care. This should reassure women and family practice obstetricians who choose to receive and provide obstetric care in a family practice teaching unit. The increase in rates of epidural use and cesarean sections and the decrease in rates of vacuum-assisted births reflect obstetric trends in Canada over the past decade.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26889505PMC4642921W2178172829What 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.