ArticleBMJ open2019
Multicentre cross-sectional study on adverse events and good practices in maternity wards in Brazil and Mexico: same problems, different magnitude.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patients' perception of changes and consequences after tumor resection : A qualitative study in Austrian patients with musculoskeletal malignancies.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2023Article
- Assessment of the quality of services of reception with risk classification in obstetrics: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the quality of delivery care in maternity wards in Brazil and Mexico based on good practices (GP) and adverse events (AE), in order to identify priorities for improvement.
designA multicentre cross-sectional study with data collection from medical records between 2015 and 2016 to compare indicators of maternal and neonatal GP and EA based on the Safe Childbirth Checklist and standardised obstetric quality indicators. Two Brazilian and five Mexican maternity wards participated in the study. Descriptive statistics and χ SAMPLING: We analysed 720 births in Brazil and 2707 in Mexico, which were selected using a systematic random sampling of 30 medical records every fortnight for 12 2-week periods in Brazil and 18 2-week periods in Mexico. We included women and their newborns, excluding those with congenital malformations.
resultsThe Mexican hospitals showed greater adherence to GP (58.2%) and a lower incidence of AE (12.9%) than the participating institutions in Brazil (26.8% compliance with GP and 16.0% AE). In spite of these differences, the relative importance of particular quality problems and type of AE are similar in both countries. Tertiary hospitals, caring for women at higher risk, have significantly (p<0.001) higher rates of AE (27.2% in Brazil and 29.6% in Mexico) than institutions attending women at lower risk, where the frequency of AE ranges from 4.7% to 11.2%. Differences were significant (p<0.001) for most indicators of GP and AE.
conclusionData from outcome and process measures revealed similar types of failures in the quality of childbirth care in both countries and indicate the need of rationalising the use of antibiotics for the mother and episiotomy, encouraging greater adherence to partograph and to the use of magnesium sulfate for the treatment of severe preeclampsia/eclampsia.
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.