ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2020
Challenges in economic evaluations in obstetric care: a scoping review and expert opinion.
Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Methods and Practice for Integrating Maternal, Fetal, and Child Health Outcomes, and Family Spillover Effects into Cost-Utility Analyses.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of maternity models of care.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-Utility and Clinical Impact of a Multicomponent Maternal Safety and High-Dependency Care Model in Three Colombian Caribbean Hospitals: A Before-and-After Study.Annals of global health · 2026Article
- Challenges in economic evaluations in obstetric care: a scoping review and expert opinion.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to identify items of economic evaluation guidelines that are frequently not complied within obstetric economic evaluations and to search for reasons for non-adherence.
designScoping review and qualitative study.
settingLiterature on economic evaluations in obstetric care and interviews with experts. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: The sample included 229 scientific articles and five experts.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed. All types of literature about economic evaluations in obstetric care were included. The adherence to guidelines was assessed and articles were qualitatively analysed on additional information about reasons for non-adherence. Issues that arose from the scoping review were discussed with experts.
main outcome measuresAdherence to guideline items of the included economic evaluations studies. Analytical themes describing reasons for non-adherence, resulting from qualitative analysis of articles and interviews with experts.
resultsA total of 184 economic evaluations and 45 other type of articles were included. Guideline items frequently not complied with were time horizon, type of economic evaluation and effect measure. Reasons for non-adherence had to do with paucity of long-term health data and assessing and combining outcomes for mother and child resulting from obstetric interventions.
conclusionsThis study identified items of guidelines that are frequently not complied with and the reasons behind this. The results are a starting point for a broad consensus building on how to deal with these challenges that can result in special guidance for the conduct of economic evaluations in obstetric care. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Non-adherence to guidelines in obstetric economic evaluation studies: the difficulties in detail.
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.