Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38326280›Full record

Observational studyThe journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians2024

Pregnancy complications and loss: an observational survey comparing anesthesiologists and obstetrician-gynecologists.

Natalie R Barnett, Renuka M George, Katherine H Hatter, Norah R Janosy, Samantha J Vizzini, Shubhangi Singh, Rebecca E Lee, Bethany J Wolf, Camila Cabrera, Amy L Duhachek-Stapelman and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians, 2024. 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
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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 at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Natalie R BarnettDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Renuka M GeorgeDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Katherine H HatterDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Norah R JanosyDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Colorado, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.
Samantha J VizziniDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Shubhangi SinghDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Rebecca E LeeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Bethany J WolfDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Camila CabreraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Amy L Duhachek-StapelmanDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Daniel KatzDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4600-2629
Medical University of South Carolina · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USChildren's Hospital Colorado · USUniversity of Michigan · USUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center · USUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWhile there is increasing information regarding the occupational risks to pregnant physicians, there is inconsistent and limited subspecialty data. Physicians may be at increased risk for pregnancy complications due to occupational exposure, long work hours, nightshifts, and physical/mental demands. Additionally, little is known regarding the education physicians receive pertaining to pregnancy risks respective to their specialties as well as departmental/institutional support for pregnancy loss or complication. Therefore, a survey was developed and distributed across multiple academic sites to ascertain if there is an inherent occupation-associated risk of pregnancy complication(s) and/or pregnancy loss for anesthesiologists (ANES) when compared to obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYN).

methodsA specialty-specific survey was distributed electronically to attending ANES and OB/GYN, via departmental listservs at six participating academic medical centers. Responses were collected from March to October 2022 and included demographic information, practice characteristics, education about pregnancy risks and details of pregnancy complications and loss. The primary comparison between specialty groups was the occurrence of at least one pregnancy complication and/or loss. Logistic regression was used to evaluate specialty outcome associations. Additionally, complication rates and types between specialties were compared using univariate and multivariable models.

resultsThe survey was distributed to 556 anesthesiology and 662 obstetrics-gynecology faculty members with 224 ANES and 168 OB/GYN respondents, yielding an overall 32.2% response rate. Of the survey respondents, 103 ANES and 116 OB/GYN reported at least one pregnancy. Demographics were similar between the two cohorts. ANES had higher gravidity and parity relative to OB/GYN and tended to be earlier in their career at first pregnancy (

conclusionsANES and OB/GYN had similar risks for pregnancy complications and loss. Anesthesiologists were more likely to recall receiving education regarding occupational risk to pregnancy, though fewer than half of all survey respondents recalled learning about these risks. Our survey results are similar to the previously identified higher rate of pregnancy complications and loss in female physicians while uncovering areas of potential knowledge gaps for which institutions and practices could strive to improve upon. More research is needed to examine the relationship between occupation and pregnancy risk pertaining to female physicians with the goal being to identify modifiable risk factors.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousGynecologyObstetricsPregnancy ComplicationsAnesthesiologistsFemaleGynecologistsHumansInfant, NewbornObstetriciansPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesAbortionoccupational exposurepregnancy complicationspregnancy outcomespontaneous

Identifiers

PMID38326280
PMCPMC11234813
OpenAlexW4391659905

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.