Observational studyAnnals of Saudi medicine
Mortality outcomes between pregnant women booked for antenatal care and unbooked pregnant women.
Observational study in Annals of Saudi medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerinatal fetal mortality and maternal mortality remains relatively high in Saudi Arabia. Antenatal care aims to improve outcomes; however, evidence to demonstrate its impact on outcomes in Saudi Arabia is lacking.
objectivesInvestigate whether booking status for antenatal care impacted outcomes for pregnant women and identify outcomes that predicted booking status.
designRetrospective observational cohort study. SETTINGS: Tertiary care center. PATIENTS AND
methodsAll Saudi women admitted to the labor or delivery units between January 2011 and December 2019 were included. Outcomes were compared between booked and unbooked women, and logistic regression was used to identify outcomes that predicted booking status, adjusted for age.
main outcome measuresBooked/unbooked status and perinatal mortality of Saudi women. SAMPLE SIZE: 10 781 women; 9546 (88.5%) booked, (11.1%) 1192 unbooked.
resultsUnbooked mothers had higher incidences of meconium-stained liquor (
conclusionsThe rate of perinatal and maternal mortality in this cohort was relatively low and equivalent between booked and un-booked mothers, contrary to our expectations. More analysis of the socioeconomic data may explain this striking result. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective chart-review with incomplete data retrieval that affected the completeness of data retrieved. The results of the multivariate analysis cannot be used to infer causality because the study is observational.
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.