Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38756669›Full record

ArticleBMJ medicine2024

Development of a national maternity early warning score: centile based score development and Delphi informed escalation pathways.

Stephen Gerry, Jonathan Bedford, Oliver C Redfern, Hannah Rutter, Mae Chester-Jones, Marian Knight, Tony Kelly, Peter J Watkinson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Recognising obstetric emergencies.Case reports in women's health · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

8 authors.

Stephen GerryNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4654-7311
Jonathan BedfordUniversity of Oxford Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9455-022X
Oliver C RedfernUniversity of Oxford Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3596-3806
Hannah RutterMaternity and Neonatal Safety Improvement Programme, NHS England, London, UK.
Mae Chester-JonesNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9710-5866
Marian KnightNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1984-4575
Tony KellyMaternity and Neonatal Safety Improvement Programme, NHS England, London, UK.
Peter J WatkinsonUniversity of Oxford Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1023-3927

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To derive a new maternity early warning score (MEWS) from prospectively collected data on maternity vital signs and to design clinical response pathways with a Delphi consensus exercise. Design: Centile based score development and Delphi informed escalation pathways. Setting: Pregnancy Physiology Pattern Prediction (4P) prospective UK cohort study, 1 August 2012 to 28 December 2016. Participants: Pregnant people from the 4P study, recruited before 20 weeks' gestation at three UK maternity centres (Oxford, Newcastle, and London). 841, 998, and 889 women provided data in the early antenatal, antenatal, and postnatal periods. Main outcome measures: Development of a new national MEWS, assigning numerical weights to measurements in the lower and upper extremes of distributions of individual vital signs from the 4P prospective cohort study. Comparison of escalation rates of the new national MEWS with the Scottish and Irish MEWS systems from 18 to 40 weeks' gestation. Delphi consensus exercise to agree clinical responses to raised scores. Results: A new national MEWS was developed by assigning numerical weights to measurements in the lower and upper extremes (5%, 1%) of distributions of vital signs, except for oxygen saturation where lower centiles (10%, 2%) were used. For the new national MEWS, in a healthy population, 56% of observation sets resulted in a total score of 0 points, 26% a score of 1 point, 12% a score of 2 points, and 18% a score of ≥2 points (escalation of care is triggered at a total score of ≥2 points). Corresponding values for the Irish MEWS were 37%, 25%, 22%, and 38%, respectively; and for the Scottish MEWS, 50%, 18%, 21%, and 32%, respectively. All three MEWS were similar at the beginning of pregnancy, averaging 0.7-0.9 points. The new national MEWS had a lower mean score for the rest of pregnancy, with the mean score broadly constant (0.6-0.8 points). The new national MEWS had an even distribution of healthy population alerts across the antenatal period. In the postnatal period, heart rate threshold values were adjusted to align with postnatal changes. The centile based score derivation approach meant that each vital sign component in the new national MEWS had a similar alert rate. Suggested clinical responses to different MEWS values were agreed by consensus of an independent expert panel. Conclusions: The centile based MEWS alerted escalation of care evenly across the antenatal period in a healthy population, while reducing alerts in healthy women compared with other MEWS systems. How well the tool predicted adverse outcomes, however, was not assessed and therefore external validation studies in large datasets are needed. Unlike other MEWS systems, the new national MEWS was developed with prospectively collected data on vital signs and used a systematic, expert informed process to design an associated escalation protocol.

Indexed as

Critical careObstetricsPregnancy complications

Identifiers

PMID38756669
PMCPMC11097818

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.