Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31060519›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019

Patient reported outcome measures for use in pregnancy and childbirth: a systematic review.

Fiona Dickinson, Mary McCauley, Helen Smith, Nynke van den Broek

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Reporting of management and outcomes in the hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn: a systematic literature review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Woman-Centered Care: Standardized Outcomes Measure.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fiona DickinsonCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Health, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK. fiona.dickinson@lstmed.ac.uk.
Mary McCauleyCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Health, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
Helen SmithCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Health, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
Nynke van den BroekCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Health, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, an increasing number of women give birth in a healthcare facility. Improvement in the quality of care is crucial if preventable maternal mortality and morbidity are to be reduced. A Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) can be used to measure quality of care and provide new information on the impact that treatment or interventions have on patient's self-assessed health and health-related quality of life. We conducted a systematic review to identify which condition-specific PROMs are currently available for use in pregnancy and childbirth, and to evaluate whether these could potentially be used to assess the quality of care provided for women using maternity services.

methodsWe searched for articles relating to the use of PROMs related to care during pregnancy, childbirth, the postnatal period and women's health more generally using PsycINFO, CINAHL, Medline and Web of Science databases as well as "grey literature", with no date limit. Any PROM identified was reviewed with regards to development, use, and potential applicability to assess quality of maternity care provision. A narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings.

resultsSix papers were identified; two related to aspects of pregnancy (hyperemesis gravidarum and gestational diabetes), and four related to childbirth and the postnatal period (obstetric haemorrhage and postnatal depression). Within these papers, a total of 14 different tools were identified, which assessed a variety of aspects of physical, psychological and social health, or were generic tools, not specific to childbirth. One PROM addressed childbirth generally, however, it did not ask for or provide specific outcome measures but required women to identify and then assess what they considered the most important areas in their life affected by childbirth.

conclusionsTo date, there is no PROM agreed which would be suitable as patient reported outcome measure for the assessment of the quality of care women receive during pregnancy or after childbirth. However, there are a variety of available assessment tools which could potentially be helpful in developing new and existing PROMs for maternity care.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansInfant, NewbornMaternal Health ServicesObstetricsPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeQuality of Health CareQuality of LifeChildbirthMaternity carePatient reported outcome measurePregnancyQuality of care

Identifiers

PMID31060519
PMCPMC6501313
OpenAlexW2947236957

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.