ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026
Learning opportunities in eclampsia care: A ten-year audit from Norway, 2013-2022.
Article 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.
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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe World Health Organization recommends surveillance, including audits with case reviews of severe maternal morbidities such as eclampsia, to improve obstetric outcomes. We aimed to audit eclampsia and to identify learning opportunities in eclampsia care in Norway. MATERIAL AND
methodsOur study population included all women discharged with a diagnosis of eclampsia (ICD-10: O15) and with a documented generalized seizure in medical records at two university hospitals in Norway from 2013 to 2022. An eclampsia working group developed a digital eclampsia case report form for gathering clinical information from medical records. Based on a structured summary of information from the digital case report form, the group reviewed the care for women with eclampsia. Each case was discussed and reviewed according to the clinical guidelines by the group. Learning opportunities to improve care were identified and classified according to whether they contributed to the outcome.
resultsAmong 93 139 deliveries, 22 women with an initial eclampsia diagnosis were identified (2.4 per 10 000). Subsequent clinical information identified an alternative probable etiology of seizures in five women. None of the 22 women received magnesium sulfate prior to the seizure, and cerebral imaging was performed in 11 of 22 women. In 18 women, learning opportunities were identified, and for eight women, a different management could potentially have prevented eclampsia. The eclampsia working group identified learning opportunities related to underuse of magnesium sulfate prophylaxis when indicated, inadequate management of hypertension both before and after eclamptic seizure, underuse of cerebral imaging as a diagnostic tool, and lack of follow-up consultation with an obstetrician in women diagnosed with eclampsia.
conclusionsLearning opportunities were found in 18 of 22 women, and improvements in care could potentially have changed the outcome for eight of the women. This audit highlights the importance of differential diagnostic consideration for seizures in pregnant and postpartum women, the use of prophylactic magnesium sulfate when indicated, and the diagnosis and management of hypertension in pregnancy. Eclampsia audits should be incorporated into national routine surveillance and learning systems to improve obstetric care.
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.