ReviewCureus2025
Effectiveness and Implementation of Obstetric Triage During Pregnancy and Childbirth: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obstetric triage systems play a vital role in ensuring timely care for pregnant women, yet their implementation and effectiveness vary across healthcare settings. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on the impact of standardized obstetric triage systems on care timeliness, staff competency, and maternal-fetal outcomes, while examining barriers and facilitators to successful implementation in diverse contexts. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a systematic search across six databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore). Eligible studies evaluated obstetric triage interventions, reported quantitative or mixed-methods data on implementation/effectiveness outcomes (e.g., time to assessment, length of stay (LOS), staff knowledge), and were peer-reviewed. 11 studies met inclusion criteria and were evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for risk of bias; seven were rated as low risk. Due to heterogeneity in interventions, outcomes, and settings (high- vs low-resource), a narrative synthesis was performed. Key findings demonstrated that standardized triage tools significantly reduced the time from patient arrival to initial evaluation by a healthcare provider (time to provider assessment) and LOS in high-resource settings. In low-resource contexts, locally adapted models reduced median waiting times from 40 minutes to five minutes, though systemic barriers like understaffing persisted. Successful implementation relied on staff training and workflow integration, while variability in adoption reflected organizational culture. Limitations included heterogeneity precluding meta-analysis and under-representation of low-resource settings. Obstetric triage standardization enhances care efficiency, but effectiveness depends on contextual adaptation and multidisciplinary engagement. Future research should prioritize randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cost-effectiveness analyses, and tailored strategies for low-resource settings.
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.