Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39552204›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025

Hospital obstetric volume and maternal outcomes: Does hospital size matter?

Natalie Holowko, Linnea V Ladfors, Anne K Örtqvist, Mia Ahlberg, Olof Stephansson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Hospital obstetric volume and maternal outcomes: Does hospital size matter?Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Natalie HolowkoClinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9124-3264
Linnea V LadforsClinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9417-6936
Anne K ÖrtqvistClinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9019-9233
Mia AhlbergClinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Olof StephanssonClinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1528-4563

Funding

Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd 2019-00590Vetenskapsrådet 2019-01275
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn recent decades, centralization of health care has resulted in a number of obstetric unit closures. While studies support better infant outcomes in larger facilities, few have investigated maternal outcomes. We investigated obstetric unit closures over time and whether obstetric volume is associated with onset of labor, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS). MATERIAL AND

methodsAll births registered in Sweden between 1992 and 2019 (Medical Birth Register, N = 2 931 140), linked with data on sociodemographic characteristics and maternal/infant diagnoses, were used to describe obstetric unit closures. After excluding congenital malformations, obstetric volume was categorized (low: 0-1999, medium: 2000-3999, high: ≥4000 births per year). Restricting to 2004 onwards (after most closures), the association between volume and onset of labor (spontaneous as reference) was estimated. Restricting to spontaneous, full-term (≥37 weeks gestation) cephalic births, we then investigated the association between volume and PPH and, after excluding planned cesarean sections, OASIS. Odds ratios from multilevel (logistic) models clustered by hospital were estimated.

resultsThe 20 dissolved obstetric units (1992-2019) had relatively stable volume until their closure. Compared to the average, women birthing in the highest volume hospitals were older (31.3 years vs. 30.4) and a higher proportion had >12 years of education (57 vs. 51%). Compared to high-volume hospitals, there was no significant difference in labor starting by elective cesarean section or induction, rather than spontaneously, among low (OR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.73-1.06) and medium (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-1.01) volume hospitals. There were lower odds of PPH among low (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.85) and medium (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.97) volume hospitals. No significant association was found between obstetric volume and OASIS (low: OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82-1.18; medium: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.05).

conclusionsThere was not a strong relationship between obstetric volume and maternal outcomes. Reduced odds of PPH for women birthing in smaller units may be due to triaging high-risk pregnancies to larger hospitals. While there was no significant association between obstetric volume and onset of labor or OASIS, other important factors related to closures, such as workload and overcrowding, should be investigated.

Indexed as

Postpartum HemorrhageAdultDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHealth Facility SizeHospitals, High-VolumeHospitals, Low-VolumeHumansObstetric Labor ComplicationsPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRegistriesSwedenhospital sizeobstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS)obstetric closuresobstetric volumeonset of laborpostpartum hemorrhage

Identifiers

PMID39552204
PMCPMC11683531

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.