Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34268858›Full record

ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2021

Balancing restrictions and access to maternity care for women and birthing partners during the COVID-19 pandemic: the psychosocial impact of suboptimal care.

J Lalor, S Ayers, J Celleja Agius, S Downe, O Gouni, K Hartmann, M Nieuwenhuijze, M Oosterman, J D Turner, S I Karlsdottir and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands maternity care responses to COVID-19: A comparative study.Women and birth : journal of the Australian College of Midwives · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors.

J LalorSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.
S AyersCentre for Maternal and Child Health, City University of London, London, UK.
J Celleja AgiusFaculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Malta, Msida, Malta.
S DowneUniversity of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
O GouniCosmoanelixis Prenatal & Life sciences, Athens, Greece.
K HartmannMother Hood e.V., Bundeselterninitiative zum Schutz von Mutter und Kind während Schwangerschaft, Bonn, Germany.
M NieuwenhuijzeResearch Centre for Midwifery Science Maastricht, Zuyd University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
M OostermanVrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J D TurnerDepartment of Infection and Immunity, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg.
S I KarlsdottirUniversity of Akureyri Iceland, Akureyri, Iceland.
A HorschUniversity of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

COST Action 18211
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

COVID-19EuropeFamilyFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInfection ControlMaternal Health ServicesParturitionPatient Acceptance of Health CarePregnancyPregnant PeopleQuality of Health CareSARS-CoV-2Women's Rights

Identifiers

PMID34268858
PMCPMC8441715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.