ArticleBMJ medicine2024
Development of a national maternity early warning score: centile based score development and Delphi informed escalation pathways.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Maternal early warning scores shown to be methodologically weak and at high risk of bias.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2025Pooled it
- Review article: Use of prehospital early warning scores to predict short-term mortality: A systematic review.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2025Pooled it
- A Concept Analysis of the Dynamics of Risk, Midwifery Agency and the Maternity Early Warning Tool.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and predictive analytics in obstetric anesthesia: early warning for maternal complications.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2026Review
- Prehospital assessment of perinatal patients by ambulance clinicians: development, implementation, review and national application.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Supporting the implementation of a Maternal Early Warning System (MEWS) protocol using Human-Centred Design.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Magnesium sulfate pharmacology for maternal and critical-care indications: mechanisms, pharmacokinetics, and the therapeutic window.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Equity at the point of care: auditing AI-supported resource allocation in obstetric emergencies.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Early warning systems to predict severe complications during preterm and postpartum: A scoping review.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2025Article
- Recognising obstetric emergencies.Case reports in women's health · 2025Article
- Bibliometric analysis of scientific research on early obstetric warning system.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Review
- Predictive value of modified early warning score and risk stratification for adverse cardiovascular events in acute chest pain patients.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Expanding outpatient management of low-risk pulmonary embolism to the pregnant population: a case series.European heart journal. Case reports · 2024Article
- The approach to chest pain during pregnancy.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.