Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33765962›Full record

Observational studyBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021

Uterotonics for prevention of postpartum haemorrhage: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.

Harriet Ruysen, Josephine Shabani, Claudia Hanson, Louise T Day, Andrea B Pembe, Kimberly Peven, Qazi Sadeq-Ur Rahman, Nishant Thakur, Kizito Shirima, Tazeen Tahsina and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effect of Carbetocin on Postpartum Hemorrhage after Vaginal Delivery: A Meta-Analysis.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Observational
  12. Observational
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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Harriet Ruysen *Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK. Harriet.Ruysen@lshtm.ac.uk.
Josephine Shabani *Department of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute (IHI), Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Claudia HansonPublic Health Sciences - Global Health - Health Systems and Policy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Louise T DayCentre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK.
Andrea B PembeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS), Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Kimberly PevenCentre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK.
Qazi Sadeq-Ur RahmanMaternal and Child Health Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Nishant ThakurResearch division, Golden Community, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Kizito ShirimaDepartment of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute (IHI), Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Tazeen TahsinaMaternal and Child Health Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Rejina GurungResearch division, Golden Community, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Menna Narcis TarimoDepartment of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute (IHI), Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Allisyn C Moran *Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Joy E Lawn *Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK.
EN-BIRTH Study Group
Ifakara Health Institute · TZLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research · BDMuhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences · TZKarolinska Institutet · SEKing's College London · GB

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is a leading cause of preventable maternal mortality worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends uterotonic administration for every woman after birth to prevent PPH. There are no standardised data collected in large-scale measurement platforms. The Every Newborn Birth Indicators Research Tracking in Hospitals (EN-BIRTH) is an observational study to assess the validity of measurement of maternal and newborn indicators, and this paper reports findings regarding measurement of coverage and quality for uterotonics.

methodsThe EN-BIRTH study took place in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal and Tanzania, from July 2017 to July 2018. Clinical observers collected tablet-based, time-stamped data. We compared observation data for uterotonics to routine hospital register-records and women's report at exit-interview survey. We analysed the coverage and quality gap for timing and dose of administration. The register design was evaluated against gap analyses and qualitative interview data assessing the barriers and enablers to data recording and use.

resultsObserved uterotonic coverage was high in all five hospitals (> 99%, 95% CI 98.7-99.8%). Survey-report underestimated coverage (79.5 to 91.7%). "Don't know" replies varied (2.1 to 14.4%) and were higher after caesarean (3.7 to 59.3%). Overall, there was low accuracy in survey data for details of uterotonic administration (type and timing). Register-recorded coverage varied in four hospitals capturing uterotonics in a specific column (21.6, 64.5, 97.6, 99.4%). The average coverage measurement gap was 18.1% for register-recorded and 6.0% for survey-reported coverage. Uterotonics were given to 15.9% of women within the "right time" (1 min) and 69.8% within 3 min. Women's report of knowing the purpose of uterotonics after birth ranged from 0.4 to 64.9% between hospitals. Enabling register design and adequate staffing were reported to improve routine recording.

conclusionsRoutine registers have potential to track uterotonic coverage - register data were highly accurate in two EN-BIRTH hospitals, compared to consistently underestimated coverage by survey-report. Although uterotonic coverage was high, there were gaps in observed quality for timing and dose. Standardisation of register design and implementation could improve data quality and data flow from registers into health management information reporting systems, and requires further assessment.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBangladeshData AccuracyFemaleHospitalsHumansInfant, NewbornMaternal MortalityNepalOxytocicsPerinatal CarePostpartum HemorrhagePregnancyRegistriesSensitivity and SpecificityOxytocicsBirthCoverageHealth management systemsHospital recordsMaternalPostpartum haemorrhageSurveyUterotonicsValidity

Identifiers

PMID33765962
PMCPMC7995712
OpenAlexW3136550112

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.