ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2026
Variation in outcome reporting in studies comparing vacuum-assisted birth versus second-stage caesarean section: A systematic review.
Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the variations and quality of maternal and neonatal outcomes reported in studies on vacuum devices vs second-stage caesarean section through a systematic review. Methods: We searched major databases were searched from inception to January 2025. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. We grouped maternal and perinatal outcomes were grouped into mortality or morbidity and process or care-related categories, with 33 predefined categories and 62 subcategories. Frequencies were summarised as proportions, and outcome reporting quality was assessed using a modified Harman's questionnaire. We determined the associations between study characteristics and reporting quality through multilevel mixed-effects models. The protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD42024469164). Results: Twenty-three studies including over 2.6 million women reported 352 outcomes (132 primary; 220 secondary). The frequently reported maternal outcomes were urogenital tract injury (40/137, 29.2%) and postpartum haemorrhage (32/137, 23.4%), while Apgar score (24/215, 7%) and musculoskeletal injury (22/215, 6%) were the most common neonatal outcomes. Most outcomes scored 2/3 on the modified Harman's questionnaire, with no significant improvement in reporting quality over time. Maternal outcomes had significantly higher quality scores than neonatal outcomes (β = 0.18, p = 0.002, 95% CI 0.06-0.29). Study setting was significantly associated with total quality scores, with studies from middle-income countries showing lower scores compared with those from high-income countries (β = -1.73, p = 0.003, 95% CI -2.88 to -0.57). There was no association between reporting quality and study size, outcome type (primary or secondary), or journal impact factor. Conclusions: Outcomes reporting quality varied considerably. Standardisation through a core outcome set is needed to improve comparability, evidence synthesis, and research quality on outcomes of vacuum-assisted births.
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.