ArticleGates open research2019
Facility conditions, obstetric and neonatal care practices, and availability of emergency obstetric and neonatal care in 72 rural health facilities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Gates open research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Competent and deficient provision of childbirth services: a descriptive observational study assessing the quality of intrapartum care in two provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.BMC health services research · 2022Observational
- Social and economic consequences of the cost of obstetric and neonatal care in Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo: a mixed methods study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- Improving the quality of maternal and newborn health outcomes through a clinical mentorship program in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: study protocol.Reproductive health · 2019Article
- Facility conditions, obstetric and neonatal care practices, and availability of emergency obstetric and neonatal care in 72 rural health facilities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: A cross-sectional study.Gates open research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.