ReviewSurgery open science2020
A systematic review and meta-analysis of valued obstetric and gynecologic (OB/GYN) procedures in resource-poor areas.
Review in Surgery open science, 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare Access Through Digital Coordination: A Nationwide Analysis of Obstetrics and Gynecology E-Referral Patterns in Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Spatial Distribution and Associated Factors of Institutional Delivery among Reproductive-Age Women in Ethiopia: The Case of Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2022Article
- Which combination cause less inflammatory response during laparoscopic hysterectomy? Ligasure plus monopolar cautery or harmonic plus bipolar cautery?Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObstetric and gynecologic procedures are valuable in rural settings. Data identifying common procedures may better prepare surgeons to meet patient needs in remote settings. MATERIALS AND
methodsA literature review using key MeSH terms was performed according to methods described by the Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA on studies that described obstetric and gynecologic surgery in rural high-income countries or any setting in middle- to low-income countries. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects modeling for odds ratios of cesarean delivery and hysterectomy as proportions of total surgical volume.
resultsA total of 195 studies were included for qualitative synthesis and 22 for quantitative analysis. Obstetric and gynecologic procedures made up a 19% of all surgical cases. As compared to other obstetric and gynecologic surgical procedures, cesarean delivery was the most common procedure with odds ratio of 2.39 (95% confidence interval 1.48-3.86), and hysterectomy was the second most common procedure with odds ratio of 1.60 (1.57-1.64). However, heterogeneity between the studies was extremely high and risk of bias was high, limiting quality of findings.
conclusionGreater provision of surgical care can be enhanced by defining which procedures are most needed, which include many obstetric and gynecologic procedures, most commonly cesarean delivery and hysterectomy.
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.