SynthesisEuropean journal of public health2025
Quality of clinical practice guidelines on the COVID-19 management in pregnancy during the pandemic: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quality of guidelines for the management and prevention of occupational risks during pregnancy: a systematic quality assessment using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II).Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2026Review
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
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted maternity care, highlighting the need for rapid, high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to ensure safe care for pregnant women. We assessed the quality and recommendations of CPGs related to COVID-19 in pregnancy. Following prospective registration (PROSPERO number: CRD42022346031) we searched Medline, Web of Science, and UpToDate from inception until July 2024. The methodological quality was appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II). A total of 27 CPGs were included. High scores were achieved in scope and purpose (21/27, 78%) and clarity (17/27, 63%). The most poorly addressed domains were rigour of development and applicability to clinical practice (18/27, 67% and 19/27, 70% scored low quality, respectively). Overall, only four (15%) guidelines were recommended. Most CPGs (25/27, 93%) addressed COVID-19 screening and transmission prevention, but few covered psychological care (3/27, 11%) or maternal delivery preferences (4/21, 19%). Consensus was found on timing and mode of delivery (16/17, 94%), but there was disagreement on delayed cord clamping and virus transmission interventions. Evidence-based practice requires health care providers, patients and stakeholders to be aware of variations in both the quality and recommendations of CPGs, especially during times of uncertainty.
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.