Observational studyBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2025
A Comparison of Regulatory Maternity Unit Ratings With Clinical Outcomes and Practice Measures: An Observational Study Using Routinely Collected Data.
Observational study in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare inspection-informed ratings of individual maternity units published by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) with clinical outcomes and practice measures.
designObservational study using linked national maternity and administrative hospital data.
settingThe English NHS. POPULATION: Women with singleton pregnancies who gave birth at term, April 2018-March 2019.
methodsOutcomes and practice measures were compared with ratings using hierarchical models and empirical Bayes estimates adjusted for case-mix and unit characteristics.
main outcome measuresSevere maternal and severe neonatal morbidity. Practice measures included non-spontaneous birth (either caesarean birth before labour or the induction of labour) and intrapartum caesarean birth.
resultsOf 501 719 included women, 39 930 (8.0%) gave birth in 11 units rated 'outstanding', 357 114 (71.2%) in 110 units rated 'good', and 104 675 (20.9%) in 35 units rated 'requires improvement/inadequate'. Severe maternal morbidity did not vary by rating: 1.2% [95% confidence interval 0.87-1.5], 1.3% [1.1-1.4], and 1.0% [0.87-1.1], respectively (p = 0.59), nor did the risk of severe neonatal morbidity: 4.3% [3.3-5.6], 4.0% [3.6-4.5], and 3.4% [2.9-3.9], respectively (p = 0.48). There was no variation across the ratings in the rate of non-spontaneous birth (48.1% [42.2-53.9], 47.9% [46.4-49.4], and 47.9% [45.1-50.8], respectively; p = 0.87) nor intrapartum caesarean (16.8% [14.6-19.3], 16.6% [15.8-17.3], and 15.8% [14.9-16.7], respectively; p = 0.87).
conclusionsThere was no association between ratings of maternity units published by the national healthcare regulator and clinical outcomes and practice measures derived from routinely collected data. Concerted action is urgently needed to improve the inspection-informed ratings of maternity services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.