ArticlePloS one2024
Practice variation in induction of labor: A critical document analysis on the contribution of regional protocols.
Article in PloS one, 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleDespite national guidelines with recommendations on induction of labor (IOL), large variation in the use of this intervention exists between regions in the Netherlands. Guidelines are translated into protocols, which give a contextual description of medical practice provided in a given region. Possibly, protocols developed by regional multidisciplinary maternity care networks (MCNs) contribute to the regional variation in IOL. AIMS AND
objectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the variation between regional protocols and national guidelines regarding recommendations on IOL and the extent to which this contributes to practice variation.
methodWe performed a systematic document analysis using the Ready materials, Extract data, Analyze, Distil (READ) approach. National guidelines (n = 4) and regional protocols (n = 18) from six MCNs on topics linked to IOL were assessed between October 2021 and April 2022. An analytical framework was used to extract data for the comparison of regional protocols.
resultsSome MCNs followed all the recommendations of national guidelines in their regional protocols, others developed their own recommendations, and for some this varied per topic. When developing their own recommendations, MCNs with a high percentage of IOL added additional risk factors and stricter cut-off values. In contrast, MCNs with a low percentage of IOL added more care options for continuing midwife-led care. No clear relationship was observed between the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) scores of the national guidelines and the extent to which regional protocols complied with the recommendations.
conclusionThe translation of national guidelines to regional protocols seemed arbitrary and not very systematic. To reduce unwarranted practice variation in the use of IOL, guidance is needed to better align regional protocols with national guidelines, while including appropriate contextual factors and allowing women's preferences. Additionally, healthcare providers should be trained in practicing evidence-based medicine instead of using evidence.
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.