ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
How do postnatal care guidelines in Australia compare to international standards? A scoping review and comparative analysis.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. 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.
- Effect of postpartum clinical guideline on maternal outcomes in iranian women: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Trial
- Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines on Timing and Onset of Labour in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Scoping Review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- A mixed methods study of the postnatal care journey from birth to discharge in a maternity service in New South Wales, Australia.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Length-of-stay and factors associated with early discharge after birth in health facilities in Guinea by mode of birth: Secondary analysis of Demographic and Health Survey 2018.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is no single national guideline in Australia on the provision of postnatal care, which means there is potential for significant variation in the standard and quality of care. This review aimed to systematically identify, synthesise, and assess the quality of postnatal care guidelines produced for use in Australia. A second aim was to compare postnatal care recommendations in Australian guidelines to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) and the World Health Organization's (WHO) postnatal care recommendations, to identify gaps and areas of disagreement. We focussed on recommendations regarding postnatal assessment of the woman or newborn, infant feeding, discharge planning, or community-based care.
methodsA scoping review was undertaken informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. A database search and a manual search of state and national government health departments, professional associations and research institute websites was performed to identify relevant guidelines and recommendations. Guideline quality was assessed using the AGREE II tool. Guideline recommendations from Australia were mapped to 67 NICE/WHO recommendations. Recommendations that partially agreed, were modified, or in disagreement underwent further analysis.
resultsA total of 31 Australian postnatal guidelines were identified and overall, these were of moderate- to high-quality. Of the 67 NICE/WHO recommendations, most agreed with the recommendations contained in Australian guidelines. There were five NICE/WHO recommendations with which corresponding Australian recommendations disagreed. There were 12 NICE/WHO recommendations that were commonly modified within Australia's guidelines. There were three NICE/WHO recommendations that did not appear in any Australian guideline.
conclusionsRecommendations from postnatal guidelines in Australia have a high level of agreement with corresponding NICE/WHO recommendations. The few disagreements and modifications found in guideline recommendations - both across Australia's guidelines and between Australia's and the NICE/WHO guidelines - are worrying and warrant further examination, as they may result in different standards of care across Australia. Identified gaps in guidance should be prioritised for inclusion in new or updated guidelines where appropriate.
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.