ArticleBMJ open2024
Processes of obstetrical care and outcomes among Ontario physicians versus non-physicians: a population-based study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
objectiveWe compared processes of antepartum, intrapartum and postpartum care and obstetrical outcomes between physicians and non-physicians.
designThis is a population-based retrospective matched cohort study.
settingThe study was conducted in Ontario, Canada.
participantsPhysicians and non-physicians residing in high-income urban areas from 1 April 2009 to 26 November 2018 were included. Physicians were matched to non-physicians on maternal age, calendar year, parity, conception by assisted reproductive technology and singleton versus multifetal gestation. We compared processes of antepartum, intrapartum and postpartum care between physicians and non-physicians. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was mode of delivery (caesarean section, C-section vs vaginal delivery). Secondary outcomes included obstetrical anal sphincter injury among those experiencing vaginal birth and differences in urgent healthcare contacts (maternal and neonatal) during the postpartum period.
results7327 physicians were matched 1:5 to 36 185 non-physicians and were well balanced except for comorbidities (physicians had fewer comorbidities). Physicians had more antenatal ultrasounds and invasive prenatal testing, received labour anaesthesia more often and were more often delivered by their own care provider. In adjusted analyses, physicians and non-physicians had a similar risk of C-section (aRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.00, p=0.07). There was no difference in neonatal urgent care contacts; non-physicians had a higher risk of maternal urgent postpartum care (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.22, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37, p<0.0001).
conclusionsPhysicians and non-physicians of similar age and with similar pregnancy characteristics had a comparable rate of C-section, which may be related to a lack of cost drivers for C-section in Ontario.
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.