Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37289756›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Placental pathology reports: A qualitative study in a US university hospital setting on perceived clinical utility and areas for improvement.

Kelly Gallagher, Jane-Frances C Aruma, Christiana N Oji-Mmuo, Jaimey M Pauli, William M Curtin, Jeffery A Goldstein, Heather L Stuckey, Alison D Gernand

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Modeling human placental biology: a review of organoid technologies.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  3. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kelly GallagherRoss and Carol Nese College of Nursing, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3291-3512
Jane-Frances C ArumaCollege of Medicine, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine University Park Campus, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Christiana N Oji-MmuoDivision of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Jaimey M PauliDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
William M CurtinDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Jeffery A GoldsteinDepartment of Pathology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Heather L StuckeyDepartment of Medicine, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Alison D GernandDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center · USPennsylvania State University · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore how placental pathology is currently used by clinicians and what placental information would be most useful in the immediate hours after delivery. STUDY

designWe used a qualitative study design to conduct in-depth, semi-structured interviews with obstetric and neonatal clinicians who provide delivery or postpartum care at an academic medical center in the US (n = 19). Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using descriptive content analysis.

resultsClinicians valued placental pathology information yet cited multiple barriers that prevent the consistent use of pathology. Four main themes were identified. First, the placenta is sent to pathology for consistent reasons, however, the pathology report is accessed by clinicians inconsistently due to key barriers: difficult to find in the electronic medical record, understand, and get quickly. Second, clinicians value placental pathology for explanatory capability as well as for contributions to current and future care, particularly when there is fetal growth restriction, stillbirth, or antibiotic use. Third, a rapid placental exam (specifically including placental weight, infection, infarction, and overall assessment) would be helpful in providing clinical care. Fourth, placental pathology reports that connect clinically relevant findings (similar to radiology) and that are written with plain, standardized language and that non-pathologists can more readily understand are preferred.

conclusionPlacental pathology is important to clinicians that care for mothers and newborns (particularly those that are critically ill) after birth, yet many problems stand in the way of its usefulness. Hospital administrators, perinatal pathologists, and clinicians should work together to improve access to and contents of reports. Support for new methods to provide quick placenta information is warranted.

Indexed as

PlacentaStillbirthFemaleFetal Growth RetardationHospitals, UniversityHumansInfant, NewbornParturitionPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID37289756
PMCPMC10249791
OpenAlexW4379805309

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.