ArticleCureus2025
Impact of Obstetrical Emergency Code (Code Pink) Activation on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Obstetrical emergencies require rapid, coordinated responses to mitigate adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Hospitals use standardized emergency codes to ensure quick staff mobilization. Limited data exist on implementing obstetric emergency codes in the Middle East. This study evaluates the effectiveness of obstetrical emergency code activation (Code Pink) in a tertiary care hospital, focusing on its impact on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methodology This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Latifa Women and Children Hospital, Dubai, UAE, a tertiary care center, between January 2020 and December 2022. The hospital records of 394 deliveries that required Code Pink activation were reviewed for maternal and neonatal outcomes. This retrospective, hospital-based study was conducted on a total of 381 participants. There were 12 cases of multiple pregnancies (one triplet and 11 twins); 394 deliveries were conducted. Key variables assessed included demographic data, obstetric history, indication for code pink, decision-to-delivery interval (DDI), mode of delivery, anesthesia used, blood loss, maternal complications, neonatal APGAR scores, umbilical cord pH, and NICU admission. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and chi-square tests and t-tests were used to determine associations. A p-value < 0.05 was used as a threshold for significance. Results The mean age and BMI of the participants were 31.99 ± 6.12 years and 30.44 ± 5.45, respectively. Cesarean sections accounted for 90.1% (n=343) of deliveries, with general anesthesia used in 64.3% (n=245) of cases. The median APGAR scores were 7 at one minute and 9 at five minutes. Fetal distress was the leading indication for emergencies at 72.7% (n=245), followed by maternal causes at 15% (n=57). The NICU admission was observed in 46.4% (n=183) of neonates, with a statistically significant association between longer response times and higher NICU admissions (p < 0.001). Cesarean delivery was also significantly associated with increased NICU admissions (p = 0.024). Conclusions This study underscores the importance of code pink activation in urgent, life-saving obstetrical measures that improve mother and newborn outcomes. High-quality treatment requires improving training, simplifying methods, and using data-driven tactics. This study offers a foundation for future emergency obstetric care research and improvement.
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.