ReviewDialogues in health2026
Barriers to perinatal healthcare for women with disabilities: A Narrative Review with a Systematic Search and Regional Focus on Kashmir.
Review in Dialogues in health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Women with disabilities face significant barriers in accessing perinatal healthcare, often leading to poor maternal and neonatal outcomes. This narrative review, conducted using a PRISMA-informed systematic search strategy, aims to identify and synthesize the global literature on barriers to perinatal healthcare among women with disabilities, with a contextual sub-analysis of studies relevant to the Kashmir region. A total of 61 studies, published between 1967 and 2024, were identified through a PRISMA-informed systematic search process across four academic databases: Psycinfo, Jstor, Medline, and Google Scholar. Studies were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Given substantial heterogeneity in study designs, disability types, outcomes, and regional contexts, findings were synthesized using an interpretive narrative thematic approach rather than statistical aggregation. The review synthesized findings from both qualitative (
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.