Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30987994›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Exploring standardisation, monitoring and training of medical devices in assisted vaginal birth studies: protocol for a systematic review.

Emily J Hotton, Sophie Renwick, Katie Barnard, Erik Lenguerrand, Julia Wade, Tim Draycott, Joanna F Crofts, Natalie S Blencowe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emily J HottonTranslational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8570-9136
Sophie RenwickWomen's and Children's Research, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Katie BarnardWomen's and Children's Research, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Erik LenguerrandSchool of Clinical Sciences, Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Bristol School of Clinical Science, Bristol, UK.
Julia WadeSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Tim DraycottWomen's and Children's Research, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Joanna F CroftsWomen's and Children's Research, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Natalie S BlencoweCentre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6111-2175
North Bristol NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2011-04-016Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/S001751/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAssisted vaginal birth (AVB) can markedly improve maternal and neonatal outcomes arising from complications in the second stage of labour. Historically, both forceps and ventouse devices have been used to assist birth; however, they are not without risk and are associated with complications, such as cephalohaematoma, retinal haemorrhage and perineal trauma. As new devices are developed to overcome the limitations of existing techniques, it is necessary to establish their efficacy and effectiveness within randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A major challenge of evaluating complex interventions (ie, invasive procedures/devices used to assist vaginal birth) is ensuring they are delivered as intended. It can be difficult to standardise intervention delivery and monitor fidelity, and account for the varying expertise of clinicians (accoucher expertise). This paper describes the protocol for a systematic review aiming to investigate the reporting of device standardisation, monitoring and training in trials evaluating complex interventions, using AVB as a case study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Relevant keywords and subject headings will be used to conduct a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and ClinicalTrials.gov, for RCTs and pilot/feasibility studies evaluating AVB. Abstracts will be screened and full-text articles of eligible studies reviewed for inclusion. Information relating to the following categories will be extracted: standardisation of device use (ie, descriptions of operative steps, including mandatory/flexible parameters), monitoring of intervention delivery (ie, intervention fidelity, confirming that an intervention is delivered as intended) and accoucher expertise (ie, entry criteria for participation, training programmes and previous experience with the device). Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because primary data will not be collected. Findings will be disseminated by publishing in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at relevant conferences.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansPregnancyReference StandardsResearch DesignSurgical InstrumentsSystematic Reviews as Topicassisted vaginal birthcomplex interventionsintervention fidelityintervention standardisationrandomised controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID30987994
PMCPMC6500334
OpenAlexW2940173328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.