Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 30, 2025
External Cephalic Version: Is it an Effective and Safe Procedure?
Published on: June 6, 2020
Variations in caesarean section outcome reporting in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review
Amie Wilson1, Harpreet Kaur2, Ahmed Ali Hassan3
1Department of Metabolism and Systems Science, WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom; Centre for Women's and Newborn Health, International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Objective:
To explore the variation and quality of the outcomes reported using descriptive analysis and interactive network visualisation of CS outcomes of comparative studies conducted in low-and middle-income settings.
Study Design:
Systematic review of comparative studies to reduce caesarean section complications in low- and middle-income countries and outcome assessment using the modified Harman questionnaire, assessing for the presence of a clear primary outcome, an explanation of how the outcomes were analysed and a description of the methods used to enhance the quality of these measures.
Results:
102 comparative studies were included. Studies of interventions to improve maternal and perinatal outcomes after caesarean section reported 466 outcomes with 15 % of these outcomes appearing only once across the outcomes reviewed (n = 73). The most common outcome categories reported were maternal death, disability and bleeding. Psychological and injury outcomes were less commonly reported. The overall quality of outcome reporting varied between studies but was particularly low for reporting on methods to improve outcome measures. Very few outcomes scored a maximum of three points when assessed according to the modified Harman score, with only 15 of the primary outcomes (16 %) achieving 3 points and 40 of the secondary outcomes (11 %) achieving 3 points. The median quality of reporting was 2 (range 0, 3) for all outcomes, for a maximum score of 3. Quality of outcome reporting was associated with the type of outcome (primary or secondary), the region in which the study was conducted in, and journal characteristics such as impact factor and journal type.
Conclusions:
There was wide variability in both the outcomes reported and the frequency in which they were reported. Overall, very few primary and secondary outcomes achieved the maximum score of three on the modified Harman score, highlighting the need for a core outcome set for caesarean section intervention trials to improve the consistency and synergy of future research outcome definition, measurement and synthesis.
Trial Registration:
The protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD42022353939).
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:21Types of Reports II: Incident or Occurrence Report
Purposes:
In the healthcare industry, reports play a crucial role in documenting incidents within an agency. The primary objective of these reports is to ensure patient safety, uphold the...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:22Healthcare Associated Infections II: Preventive Measures
The best practices for preventing healthcare-associated infections include hand hygiene, patient risk...
01:23Methods of Documentation V: CBE
In CBE, healthcare professionals establish predefined standards of practice that define what constitutes...
01:24Data Reporting and Recording
01:26Methods Of Healthcare Delivery System
Managed Care System:
The managed care system is designed to control the cost while maintaining the quality of care. The patient's care from admission to discharge is planned by the primary care provider or the case manager, also known as the gatekeeper. In a managed care system, the number of care providers is...