Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39840819›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025

Impact of the WHO safe childbirth checklist on birth attendant behavior and maternal-newborn outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

María Fernández-Elorriaga, Jocelyn Fifield, Katherine E A Semrau, Stuart Lipsitz, Danielle E Tuller, Carol Mita, Chelsea Cho, Heather Scott, Ayda Taha, Neelam Dhingra-Kumar and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Impact of the WHO safe childbirth checklist on birth attendant behavior and maternal-newborn outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

12 authors.

María Fernández-ElorriagaAriadne Labs at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jocelyn FifieldAriadne Labs at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Katherine E A SemrauAriadne Labs at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Stuart LipsitzAriadne Labs at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Danielle E TullerAriadne Labs at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Carol MitaCountway Library, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Chelsea ChoAriadne Labs at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Heather ScottMaternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing Department, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ayda TahaWHO Patient Safety Flagship World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Neelam Dhingra-KumarWHO Patient Safety Flagship World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Allisyn MoranMaternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing Department, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Rose L MolinaAriadne Labs at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7977-7960

Funding

Ariadne LabsUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid CA5/RSUE/2022-00194USAID 7200AA20CA00003World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe intrapartum period is critical for reducing maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. The WHO's Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC) was designed as a reminder of the most critical, evidence-based practices (EBPs) to improve quality care and reduce preventable complications and deaths.

objectiveTo assess the impact of SCC on birth attendant behavior and maternal and newborn health outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed searching across five databases from 2009 to 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and pre/post studies. DATA ANALYSIS: A meta-analysis yielded a pooled estimate of relative risk (RR) for adherence to and effectiveness of the SCC. MAIN

resultsOf 1070 articles identified, 16 were included. Use of the SCC increased adherence to EBPs by 65% (RR 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-2.02). The behaviors that improved the most were danger sign counseling (RR 12.37; 95% CI 1.95-78.52; P = 0.008) and pre-eclampsia management (RR 3.43; 95% CI 1.33-8.88; P = 0.011). There was moderate evidence for stillbirth reduction (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80-0.99; P = 0.034).

conclusionThere is moderate evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of the SCC in reducing stillbirths and improving adherence to EBPs.

Indexed as

ChecklistDelivery, ObstetricMidwiferyFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeWorld Health Organizationchildbirthevidence‐based practicesmaternal and newborn carematernal and newborn safetymaternal healthquality of caresafe childbirth checklist

Identifiers

PMID39840819
PMCPMC12093921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.