ReviewAmerican journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM2023
For better care we need better data: towards a national obstetrics registry.
Review in American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postpartum thromboembolism risk by CHAPregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- High-Risk Consult Multidisciplinary Team in a Tertiary Maternity Unit: Changing Prevalence of Cases.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Building Real-World Evidence Infrastructure to Improve Health and Healthcare in the United States: Part III-Questions for Translational Science and Action Theory.International journal of translational medical research and public health · 2025Article
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Primary Cesarean Birth and Adverse Outcomes Among Low-Risk Nulliparous People.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Unacceptably high rates of severe maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States and stark racial disparities in outcomes are generating efforts to improve both research capacity and quality improvement in obstetrical care. Comprehensive, high-quality datasets on which to build these efforts are crucial to the success of obstetrical quality improvement efforts. However, existing data sources in obstetrics have notable limitations. Other medical and surgical specialties have addressed similar challenges through the creation of national registries, and we argue that obstetrics must take the same approach to improve outcomes. In this article, we summarized the current availability and limitations of large-scale data in obstetrics research and compared the data with registries developed in other specialties. Moreover, we have outlined the guiding principles for the development of a national obstetrics registry and have proposed future directions.
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.