ArticleBMJ open2025
Health economic evaluations of perinatal complications with conflicting maternal-fetal interests: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- The economic imperative of artificial intelligence in maternal and neonatal health: a review of evaluation benefits, frameworks, challenges, future perspectives, and limitations.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPerinatal complications involving conflicts between maternal and fetal health interests present a unique challenge to health economic evaluations. No comprehensive synthesis exists of how such studies account for dual-patient outcomes. We aim to develop a scoping review protocol to map and critically examine the methodologies in this understudied area. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will be conducted under the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) framework. It will include health economic studies, such as cost-effectiveness, cost utility and decision analysis studies, focusing on clinical conditions during pregnancy where maternal and fetal interests conflict. Cost analysis without effectiveness assessment will be excluded. Using comprehensive search strategies in Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Elsevier) and Cochrane Library (Wiley), two independent reviewers will screen and identify relevant studies via abstract and full-text review. We will perform data extraction following an adapted form from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist, which includes the content details, such as the type of study, population, intervention, comparator, probability, utility, duration, cost, model types and uncertainty measurements. As we try to explore the impact of the health economic studies in clinical practice, we will include citation metrics of each study and whether the study was cited by practice guidelines and clinical trials in the data extraction. We will also apply the JBI Checklist for Economic Evaluations to assess the reporting completeness in each article. Results will be tabulated by clinical theme and synthesised narratively to highlight patterns in valuation approaches, gaps in current methods and impact on clinical guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval as it involves secondary analysis of published data. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and stakeholder engagement activities. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024557324.
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.