Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41513458›Full record

ReviewActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026

Beyond evidence hierarchies: Leveraging randomized controlled trials and real-world data to advance the value of maternity care.

Yanan Hu, Valerie Slavin, Joanne Enticott, Emily Callander

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Yanan HuMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1794-7789
Valerie SlavinGold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7688-2498
Joanne EnticottMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4480-5690
Emily CallanderMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While existing literature has compared the methodological strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world data (RWD) in general medical research, two critical gaps remain unaddressed: (1) no prior communication papers have specifically examined this comparison in the context of maternity care where unique ethical and practical considerations exist, and (2) no studies have systematically compared cost-effectiveness analyses derived from RCTs versus RWD approaches-a crucial dimension for value-based maternity care decisions. This article examines how both approaches can strengthen the evidence base and support the delivery of value-based maternity care. We argue that neither RCTs nor RWD should be regarded as inherently superior in guiding decision-making. Each study design offers valuable insights, and their findings must be critically appraised in light of methodological rigor, context, and relevance, particularly when their results diverge.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisFemaleHumansPregnancyResearch DesignValue-Based Health Carecostmaternitypregnancyreal‐world datatrialvalue‐based care

Identifiers

PMID41513458
PMCPMC12942053

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.