ArticleBMJ open2026
How do doctors build knowledge around obstetric emergencies? A scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObstetric emergencies (OEs) are high-stakes events but, despite their importance, how doctors build knowledge relating to them remains poorly understood.
objectivesExplore the international literature on knowledge-building around OEs with the goal of informing future UK training and workforce strategies. SEARCH STRATEGY: Subject headings, free-text terms and synonyms relating to OEs were included. Searches were conducted in April 2024 and updated in June 2026 across MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO (all via Ovid), ERIC (via EBSCOhost) and Scopus. SELECTION CRITERIA: English language studies, published after 2016, addressing OE knowledge-building in obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) doctors across all grades, were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening was undertaken in two phases (title and abstract and full text) with reasons for exclusion documented. A 10% sample was double-screened and discrepancies resolved through discussion. A structured data extraction tool was refined before full extraction. Thematic synthesis was conducted inductively. MAIN
resultFindings from 369 papers were synthesised. Knowledge-building sources clustered into training, context and experience, with formal training remaining the primary focus of the literature. Barriers to learning were both structural and cultural. Inequalities permeated all domains, driving inequities in outcomes.
conclusionO&G doctors can draw on multiple sources to build OE knowledge, yet workplace-based learning (WPBL) remains a significant gap. Separating learning from clinical practice wastes knowledge-building opportunities inherent in everyday care. WPBL approaches within OE must be developed and rigorously evaluated to realise their full potential.
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.