ArticleNIHR open research2026
Use of evidence from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System in policy and clinical practice: a descriptive study using citation tracking.
Article in NIHR open research, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) was established in 2005 for research into uncommon disorders of pregnancy. This study explored the use in policy and clinical guidelines of evidence generated through UKOSS during its 20-year history, in order to inform approaches to increase the impact of future studies conducted through the platform. Methods: We searched Overton (24 September 2025) and Altmetric (6 October 2025) using the DOIs of articles reporting research conducted using UKOSS to identify citations in clinical guidelines and policy documents. We summarised citation frequency and characteristics of citing documents and organisations, and calculated the time between article publication and citation. For the most highly-cited articles, we explored the context of citations in a series of case studies. Results: A total of 308 unique citations of the 96 articles reporting UKOSS studies were detected, and 62/96 articles (65%) were cited in at least one policy document or clinical guideline. A third of citations were by organisations based in the UK and Ireland, and citations were roughly evenly split between clinical guidelines (53%) and policy publications (46%). The median delay between publication of an article and citation in policy documents/guidelines was 220.8 weeks (range 0.3-904.7 weeks). The context of citations varied, and included providing rationale for specific clinical recommendations such as prioritisation of pregnant women for vaccinations and management of the conditions investigated; supplying evidence for equality guidance and impact assessment; and providing more general background on risk, burden, and/or outcomes. Conclusions: Evidence from studies conducted via the UKOSS platform has been used extensively in policy documents and clinical guidance in the UK and globally. Consideration should be given to how to speed up knowledge translation to allow pregnant women and their babies to benefit from evidence-based policies and practice with minimum delays.
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.