ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
A new classification allowing assessment of instrumental vaginal-birth practices.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInstrumental vaginal birth, a very common intervention in obstetrics, concerns nearly one in eight women in France. Instrumentally assisted vaginal childbirth can be for maternal and/or fetal indications. Although it reduces recourse to caesarean section, it is subject to risks. Practices concerning instrumental birth are disparate, varying among different practitioners, maternity units and countries, and it is essential to be able to evaluate them. Our objective was to create a classification tool of women requiring instrumental birth to facilitate the analysis of practices within our maternity unit as well as to enable temporal and geographical comparisons. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe propose a simple and robust classification based on the same principles as Robson's classification. It is made up of seven totally inclusive and mutually exclusive groups. Our classification was refined and validated using the Delphi method by a panel of 14 experts from throughout France, and tested in our maternity unit using data from throughout 2021.
resultsThe seven clinically relevant groups are based on five obstetric criteria (multiplicity, presentation, gestational age, previous type of birth, induction of labor). To classify each woman in a group, five successive questions are posed in a predefined order. The classification has been validated by the experts with highly satisfactory overall agreement.
conclusionIn order to improve the quality of care, we propose a tool to standardize the evaluation of instrumental vaginal birth practice (called the "Isère classification", after the county where we work in south-eastern France). It will also facilitate the comparison the practices among different maternity units in a network, a country or even among different countries.
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.