ArticleJAMA network open2025
Obstetric Outcomes by Hospital Volume of Operative Vaginal Delivery.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors for subgaleal hemorrhage and adverse early neonatal outcomes: a single-center cohort study with exclusive use of forceps.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Operative Vaginal Delivery Compared to Cesarean After Failed Labor: A Population-Based Analysis of Neonatal and Maternal Outcomes.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Association of Hospital Characteristics with Brachial Plexus Birth Injury.Research square · 2026Article
- Neighborhood Opportunity, Hospital Volume, and Pediatric Postoperative Mortality.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Birth injuries in late preterm and term neonates after instrumental delivery: a prospective study on short-term and developmental outcomes.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Characterizing hospital-level factors associated with adverse outcomes following operative vaginal delivery (OVD) is crucial for optimizing obstetric care. Objective: To assess the association between hospital OVD volume and adverse outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study of OVDs in California between 2008 and 2020. OVD was determined using birth certificate and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification or International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. This study used linked vital statistics and hospital discharge data from California. The study included singleton, nonanomalous, full-term deliveries with vertex presentation. Data analysis was performed between June 10 and October 23, 2024. Exposure: Hospital OVD volume was categorized by the proportion of OVDs performed among all deliveries, grouped into low (<5.2%), medium (5.2%-7.4%), and high (≥7.4%) volume. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adverse outcomes for birthing individuals included obstetric anal sphincter injuries, cervical lacerations, and postpartum hemorrhage. Neonatal outcomes included shoulder dystocia, subgaleal hemorrhage, intracranial hemorrhage, facial nerve injury, and brachial plexus injury (BPI). χ2 and multivariable Poisson regression analyses were used to assess the association between hospital OVD volume and outcomes. Results: Among 306 818 OVDs (mean [SD] birthing parent's age, 28.5 [6.2] years; 155 157 patients with public insurance [50.6%]), hospitals with low OVD volume had an increased proportion of obstetric anal sphincter injury compared with hospitals with medium and high volumes (12.16% [7444 patients] vs 11.07% [10 709 patients] vs 9.45% [14 064 patients]). Hospitals with low volume also had a higher proportion of adverse neonatal outcomes, including shoulder dystocia (3.84% [2351 patients] vs 3.50% [3386 patients] vs 2.80% [4160 patients]), subgaleal hemorrhage (0.27% [165 patients] vs 0.18% [172 patients] vs 0.10% [144 patients]), and BPI (0.41% [251 patients] vs 0.30% [291 patients] vs 0.20% [301 patients]) compared with hospitals with medium and high volume. In multivariable analyses, low OVD volume remained associated with increased risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.62), shoulder dystocia (aRR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10-1.52), subgaleal hemorrhage (aRR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.55-4.24), and BPI (aRR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.30-2.2.29) compared with hospitals with high OVD volume. After multivariable analysis, medium OVD volume remained associated with increased risk of subgaleal hemorrhage (aRR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.04-2.86) and BPI (aRR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79) compared with high OVD volume. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that undergoing OVD at hospitals with low OVD volume was associated with adverse perinatal outcomes compared with hospitals with medium and high OVD volumes. Further exploration of the reasons for these differences and prevention of these differences is needed to improve obstetric outcomes.
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.