Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39990987›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of nursing sciences2025

Childbirth experience assessment tools based on COSMIN guidelines: A systematic review.

Yifan Cheng, Ruxue Bai, Siyu Shan, Xinmiao Zhao, Chunling Xia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of nursing sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Yifan ChengDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Ruxue BaiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Siyu ShanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xinmiao ZhaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Chunling XiaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the measurement characteristics and methodological quality of childbirth experience assessment tools, with a view to informing the selection of healthcare professionals who can provide high-quality assessment tools. Method: A systematic search was performed on specific databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang, from inception to February 29, 2024. The researchers retrieved studies on the measurement attributes of the childbirth experience assessment tool, and traced back the references of the included studies to supplement relevant literature. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, screening and data extraction were independently undertaken by two reviewers. Two researchers individually used the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias Checklist to assess the methodological quality of the scale, applied the COSMIN criteria to evaluate the measurement properties of the scale, and used a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the certainty of evidence. Result: A total of 15 studies were included to evaluate the psychometric properties of 11 childbirth experience assessment tools (including different language versions). Eight studies' methodological quality of content validity was doubtful, and the remaining studies did not report content validity. None of the tools reported measurement error, cross-cultural validity, or responsiveness. In light of the questionable or unreported content validity of the tools, the evidence quality was deemed moderate or below. Consequently, the 11 assessment tools were recommended as grade B. Conclusion: In contrast, the Questionnaire for Assessing the Childbirth Experience (QACE) is recommended for provisional use, given its relatively good methodological and measurement attributes and appropriate content for evaluation. However, further validation of other measurement properties is needed.

Indexed as

Assessment toolsChildbirth experienceCOSMIN guidelinesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39990987
PMCPMC11846598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.