Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31370099›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2020

Incidences of obstetric outcomes and sample size calculations: A Danish national registry study based on all deliveries from 2008 to 2015.

Stinne Hoegh, Line Thellesen, Karl Bang Christensen, Thomas Bergholt, Morten Hedegaard, Jette Led Sorensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Stinne HoeghDepartment of Obstetrics, Juliane Marie Center for Children, Women and Reproduction, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8712-1088
Line ThellesenDepartment of Obstetrics, Juliane Marie Center for Children, Women and Reproduction, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Karl Bang ChristensenSection of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Thomas BergholtDepartment of Obstetrics, Juliane Marie Center for Children, Women and Reproduction, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Morten HedegaardHedegaard Clinic, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jette Led SorensenDepartment of Obstetrics, Juliane Marie Center for Children, Women and Reproduction, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

Aase and Ejnar Danielsens FoundationDepartment of ObstetricsJuliane Marie CenterOestifterneToemmerhandler Johannes FogTrygFondenUniversity of Copenhagen
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn high-income countries the majority of pregnancies have a good outcome, and many adverse obstetric outcomes rarely occur. This makes demonstrating clinically relevant and statistically significant effects of new interventions a challenge. The objective of the study was to report incidences of important obstetric outcomes and to calculate sample sizes for tentative studies. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe study was a registry-based study. Data were retrieved from the Danish Medical Birth Registry and included all deliveries in Denmark from 2008 to 2015. The total population included 465 919 deliveries. The study population comprised intended vaginal deliveries with a single fetus in cephalic presentation at term (n = 381 567). Incidences were reported for 20 outcomes considering the relevance for the patients and the severity of the outcomes. We calculated the sample sizes required in tentative obstetric studies to detect risk reductions of 25 and 50%, for tests at the 5% level, using a power of 80 and 90%. For the randomized controlled trials we calculated the sample size required for comparing two proportions with equal-sized groups. For the cohort study we calculated the sample size also required for two proportions but with unequal sized groups. Outcome measures for sample size calculation were neonatal mortality, Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes and emergency cesarean section.

resultsThe incidence of neonatal mortality, Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes and emergency cesarean section was 0.05, 0.58 and 10.5%, respectively. Using neonatal mortality as the outcome in a tentative randomized controlled trial with an expected risk reduction of 50% and power of 80%, our calculation showed a sample size of 195 036 deliveries. Using Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes or emergency cesarean section as the outcome, 16 254 and 818 deliveries, respectively, were required. In tentative cohort studies, the required sample sizes were larger due to the unequal proportion of exposed/non-exposed women.

conclusionsMost adverse obstetric outcomes occur rarely; thus, very large sample sizes are required to achieve adequate statistical power in randomized controlled trials. Multicenter studies, international collaborations or alternative study designs to randomized controlled trials could be considered.

Indexed as

AdultApgar ScoreCesarean SectionDenmarkFemaleHumansIncidenceInfantInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegistriesSample Sizeemergency cesarean sectionincidencemethodsobstetric outcomeobstetricspregnancy outcomeresearch designsample size

Identifiers

PMID31370099
PMCPMC6972555

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.