Observational studyBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021
Uterotonics for prevention of postpartum haemorrhage: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Carbetocin on Postpartum Hemorrhage after Vaginal Delivery: A Meta-Analysis.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Effective coverage of skilled birth attendance in Ethiopia: a population-based cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Postpartum Hemorrhage in Humanitarian Settings: Heat-Stable Carbetocin and Tranexamic Acid Implementation Study in South Sudan.International journal of MCH and AIDS · 2024Article
- Postpartum Hemorrhage in Humanitarian Settings: Heat-Stable Carbetocin and Tranexamic Acid Implementation Study in Uganda.International journal of MCH and AIDS · 2024Article
- An Implementation Research Study on Uterotonics Use Patterns and Heat-stable Carbetocin Acceptability and Safety for Prevention of Postpartum Hemorrhage in Nigeria.International journal of MCH and AIDS · 2024Article
- A Tale of Two Medicines: The Need for Ownership, End-to-End Planning and Execution for Development and Introduction of Maternal Health Medicines.International journal of MCH and AIDS · 2024Article
- Integrating Heat-Stable Carbetocin and Tranexamic Acid for Prevention and Management of Postpartum Hemorrhage in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Five-Country Pilot Implementation Study.International journal of MCH and AIDS · 2024Article
- How and why does mode of birth affect processes for routine data collection and use? A qualitative study in Bangladesh and Tanzania.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Count every newborn: EN-BIRTH study improving facility-based coverage and quality measurement in routine information systems.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- Survey of women's report for 33 maternal and newborn indicators: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Observational
- Barriers and enablers to routine register data collection for newborns and mothers: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Observational
- Respectful maternal and newborn care: measurement in one EN-BIRTH study hospital in Nepal.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
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
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.