Extraction form for project: Schedule of Visits and Televisits for Routine Antenatal Care

Design Details

1. Key Question this study addressed
Select all that apply.
2. Study DESIGN
3. Study DESIGN
4. If an RCT, please choose the randomization level
5. DIRECTIONALITY of the study
6. Registry record (e.g., NCT)
Please provide details on ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number, other country's protocol registry, or journal article protocols
7. Multiple publications
List PMID (if available) or "file name" of ALL publications extracted under this record
8. Study NAME or ACRONYM
Leave blank if there wasn't any. Copy Registry information if available.
9. COUNTRY the study was done
Select all that apply.
10. LOCATION (e.g., Dallas, TX)
11. HOSPITAL details: name and type
Hospital name
Hospital description
Academic hospital
Non-academic hospital
NR
12. Number of CENTERS involved in the study
13. FUNDING SOURCE
14. STUDY PERIOD
Leave blank if not specified.
Start yearEnd year
15. Study INCLUSION criteria
Keep succinct. Use common abbreviations. Omit criteria of minor relevance (e.g., language, consent). Enter "NR" if not reported.
16. Study EXCLUSION criteria
Keep succinct. Use common abbreviations. Omit criteria of minor relevance (e.g., language, consent). Enter "NR" if not reported.
17. Specific population
18. Specific population
19. SAMPLE SIZE
20. Power calculation reported (y/n)
21. Primary outcome (for which power calculation was performed)
22. What was the EFFECT SIZE ESTIMATE used to calculate power
Usually RD (although they will describe as change in %). Format: RD +2.5% (5.5% to 8.0%)
23. Was primary outcome adequately powered (N≥ calculated N)
On Sample Characteristics tab, we ask about calculated sample sizes (actual N's).
24. What METHOD was used to account for confounding
25. What FACTORS were adjusted for
List all factors
Did ALL important factors have been adjusted? (including 1)age, 2)race/ethnicity, 3)at least one of the following factors: pre-existing DM, pre-existing HTN, obesity, prior preterm birth history, prior high risk pregnancy)
26. NOTES regarding the design or any overall aspects of this study
Leave blank if you don't have any notes.
27. Unextracted outcomes not in protocol

Arms

Arm NameArm Description
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleTraditional care
Less intensive antenatal visits scheduleFlexible care

Arm Details

1. BRIEF DESCRIPTION of the intervention
Be specific, but concise.
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
2. Any guidelines (e.g., ACOG) the prenatal visits followed
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
3. Total number of visits
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
4. Number of visits (In person vs. Tele)
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Number of in person visits
Number of tele visits
NR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Number of in person visits
Number of tele visits
NR
5. Timing of visit (weeks)
Please provide a list of time of prenatal visit reported by the paper; enter NR if not reported
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
6. Setting of visits (Office vs. Home)
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
7. Format of visits (Group vs. Individual)
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
8. Provider of visits (record % if more than one type of providers were mentioned)
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
OB/GYN
Nurse
Nurse practitioner/registered nurse
Midwife
Family medicine clinician
Maternal fetal medicine (MFM)
Physician assistant (associate)
Other licensed personnel
NR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
OB/GYN
Nurse
Nurse practitioner/registered nurse
Midwife
Family medicine clinician
Maternal fetal medicine (MFM)
Physician assistant (associate)
Other licensed personnel
NR
9. PARTICIPANTS of the visit
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
10. Amount of time per visit
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
11. Tele visits details: TECHNOLOGY
Enter NR if not reported.
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
12. Tele visits details: Synchronous vs. asynchronous INTERACTIONS
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
13. Tele visits details: use of HOME MONITORING DEVICE
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
14. Tele visits details: Occurred during the pandemic
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
15. Other differences between groups
Briefly summarize differences other than number/timing of visits (KQ 1) or use of televisits (KQ 2) between arms.
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
16. NOTES regarding the arm details in this study
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule

Sample Characteristics

1. How many people were ENROLLED in this study
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
2. How many people were ANALYZED in this study
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
3. Required N from Power Calculation
Leave blank if no power calculation. Answer for each arm and total.
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
4. AGE distribution (CONTINUOUS DATA) (in years)
Select and enter data for all that apply.
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
MeanStandard deviation (SD)Standard error (SE) 95% CIMedianIQRRangeNR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
MeanStandard deviation (SD)Standard error (SE) 95% CIMedianIQRRangeNR
Total
MeanStandard deviation (SD)Standard error (SE) 95% CIMedianIQRRangeNR
5. AGE distribution (CATEGORICAL DATA) (in years)
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Definition of category%
Youngest category
2nd category
3rd category
4th category
5th category
6th category
NR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Definition of category%
Youngest category
2nd category
3rd category
4th category
5th category
6th category
NR
Total
Definition of category%
Youngest category
2nd category
3rd category
4th category
5th category
6th category
NR
6. % of maternal age≥35
Please calculate if possible, and enter NR if not reported.
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
7. RACIAL distribution (%)
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
White (or Caucasian)
Black (or African)
Asian
Hispanic (or Latino)
Other 1
Other 2
NR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
White (or Caucasian)
Black (or African)
Asian
Hispanic (or Latino)
Other 1
Other 2
NR
Total
%
White (or Caucasian)
Black (or African)
Asian
Hispanic (or Latino)
Other 1
Other 2
NR
8. BMI distribution pre-pregnancy or at first encounter (CONTINUOUS DATA)
Select and enter data for all that apply.
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
MeanStandard deviation (SD)Standard error (SE) 95% CIMedianIQRRangeNR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
MeanStandard deviation (SD)Standard error (SE) 95% CIMedianIQRRangeNR
Total
MeanStandard deviation (SD)Standard error (SE) 95% CIMedianIQRRangeNR
9. BMI distribution pre-pregnancy or at first encounter (CATEGORICAL DATA)
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Definition of category%
Lowest BMI category
2nd BMI category
3rd BMI category
4th BMI category
5th BMI category
6th BMI category
NR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Definition of category%
Lowest BMI category
2nd BMI category
3rd BMI category
4th BMI category
5th BMI category
6th BMI category
NR
Total
Definition of category%
Lowest BMI category
2nd BMI category
3rd BMI category
4th BMI category
5th BMI category
6th BMI category
NR
10. INCOME distribution (CONTINUOUS DATA)
Select and enter data for all that apply.
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
MeanStandard deviation (SD)Standard error (SE) 95% CIMedianIQRRangeNR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
MeanStandard deviation (SD)Standard error (SE) 95% CIMedianIQRRangeNR
Total
MeanStandard deviation (SD)Standard error (SE) 95% CIMedianIQRRangeNR
11. INCOME distribution (CATEGORICAL DATA)
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Definition of category%
Lowest INCOME category
2nd INCOME category
3rd INCOME category
4th INCOME category
5th INCOME category
6th INCOME category
NR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Definition of category%
Lowest INCOME category
2nd INCOME category
3rd INCOME category
4th INCOME category
5th INCOME category
6th INCOME category
NR
Total
Definition of category%
Lowest INCOME category
2nd INCOME category
3rd INCOME category
4th INCOME category
5th INCOME category
6th INCOME category
NR
12. EDUCATION distribution (%) (CATEGORICAL DATA)
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
Primary school or below
Junior high school
High school
College or above
NR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
Primary school or below
Junior high school
High school
College or above
NR
Total
%
Primary school or below
Junior high school
High school
College or above
NR
13. Yeas of education completed (CONTINUOUS DATA)
Select and enter data for all that apply.
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
MeanStandard deviation (SD)Standard error (SE) 95% CIMedianIQRRangeNR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
MeanStandard deviation (SD)Standard error (SE) 95% CIMedianIQRRangeNR
Total
MeanStandard deviation (SD)Standard error (SE) 95% CIMedianIQRRangeNR
14. RELATIONSHIP status (%)
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
Married
Unmarried but marriage-like relationships
Single
Other
NR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
Married
Unmarried but marriage-like relationships
Single
Other
NR
Total
%
Married
Unmarried but marriage-like relationships
Single
Other
NR
15. EMPLOYMENT distribution
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
Full time
Part time
Unemployment
Other
NR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
Full time
Part time
Unemployment
Other
NR
Total
%
Full time
Part time
Unemployment
Other
NR
16. % of nulliparous women
If answering "NR", enter NR under specific arms, NOT total
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
17. % of unplanned pregnancy
If answering "NR", enter NR under specific arms, NOT total
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
18. % of multiple gestation
If answering "NR", enter NR under specific arms, NOT total
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
19. COMORBIDITIES
Define the comorbidities. If % reported, enter % for total sample and each study arm. Skip those that are not reported.
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Definition%
CVD (total)
Pregestational HTN
Gestational HTN
DM, type 1
Pregestational DM
Gestational DM
Depression
Anxiety
Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) or fetal growth restriction
Prior history or risk factors for preterm delivery
Tobacco, any
Other pre-existing conditions
NR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Definition%
CVD (total)
Pregestational HTN
Gestational HTN
DM, type 1
Pregestational DM
Gestational DM
Depression
Anxiety
Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) or fetal growth restriction
Prior history or risk factors for preterm delivery
Tobacco, any
Other pre-existing conditions
NR
Total
Definition%
CVD (total)
Pregestational HTN
Gestational HTN
DM, type 1
Pregestational DM
Gestational DM
Depression
Anxiety
Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) or fetal growth restriction
Prior history or risk factors for preterm delivery
Tobacco, any
Other pre-existing conditions
NR
20. SOCIAL SUPPORT
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
21. Pregnancy EDUCATION NEEDS
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
22. Live in RURAL/URBAN areas (%)
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
Rural
Urban
Others
NR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
Rural
Urban
Others
NR
Total
%
Rural
Urban
Others
NR
23. % of food insecurity
If answering "NR", enter NR under specific arms, NOT total
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
24. INSURANCE status (%)
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
Private
Medicare
Medicaid
Others
NR
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
Private
Medicare
Medicaid
Others
NR
Total
%
Private
Medicare
Medicaid
Others
NR
25. TRANSPORTATION to health care facilities
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
26. % of having internet access at home
If answering "NR", enter NR under specific arms, NOT total
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
Have internet access
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
%
Have internet access
Total
%
Have internet access
27. Other information regarding ACCESS TO CARE
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
28. Any baseline DIFFERENCES between two arms (p<0.05)?
If answering yes, choose yes under "Total", and make a note on what factors
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
29. Experienced gestational age at first prenatal visit (weeks)
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total
30. NOTES regarding the sample characteristics in this study
More intensive antenatal visits schedule
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule
Total

Outcomes

TypeDomainSpecific measurement (i.e., tool/definition/specific outcome)PopulationsTimepoints
CategoricalPatient satisfaction with antenatal careWith care provided by midwives
  • All Participants
  • At birth
CategoricalPatient satisfaction with antenatal careWith care provided by family doctors
  • All Participants
  • At birth
CategoricalPatient satisfaction with antenatal careWith care provided by hospital
  • All Participants
  • At birth
CategoricalGestational hypertensionHypertension identified
  • All Participants
  • N/A
CategoricalSmall for gestational ageDiagnosed
  • All Participants
  • Prior to labour
CategoricalInduction of labor
  • All Participants
  • Prior to labour
CategoricalSpontaneous vaginal delivery
  • All Participants
  • At delivery
ContinuousGestational age at birthGestation at delivery
  • All Participants
  • N/A (d)
ContinuousBirth weight
  • All Participants
  • At delivery (kg)
CategoricalNeonatal intensive care unit [NICU] admissionAdmitted to neonatal unit
  • All Participants
  • At delivery
ContinuousAbnormal Apgar score (threshold, e.g. <7)* (including abnormal cord pH [e.g., <7])Apgar score at 5 minutes
  • All Participants
  • At delivery
CategoricalGlucose tolerance test performed
  • All Participants
  • NR
ContinuousTotal number of visits
  • All Participants
  • N/A

Outcome Details

1. NOTES regarding the outcome
Also indicate when an outcome is extracted from a co-publication (not the primary publication)
Patient satisfaction with antenatal care
Patient satisfaction with antenatal care
Patient satisfaction with antenatal care
Gestational hypertension
Small for gestational age
Induction of labor
Spontaneous vaginal delivery
Gestational age at birth
Birth weight
Neonatal intensive care unit [NICU] admission
Abnormal Apgar score (threshold, e.g. <7)* (including abnormal cord pH [e.g., <7])
Glucose tolerance test performed
Total number of visits

RCT Risk of Bias Assessment

1. 1.1 Was the allocation sequence random?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
2. 1.2 Was the allocation sequence concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
3. 1.3 Did baseline differences between intervention groups suggest a problem with the randomization process?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
4. Risk-of-bias judgement
Rating
Notes/Comments:
5. 2.1. (effect of assignment to intervention) Were participants aware of their assigned intervention during the trial?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
6. 2.2. (effect of assignment to intervention) Were carers and people delivering the interventions aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
7. 2.3. (effect of assignment to intervention) If Y/PY/NI to 2.1 or 2.2: Were there deviations from the intended intervention that arose because of the experimental context?
Consider non-adherence or crossover
Rating
Notes/Comments:
8. 2.4. (effect of assignment to intervention) If Y/PY to 2.3: Were these deviations from intended intervention balanced between groups?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
9. 2.5. (effect of assignment to intervention) If N/PN/NI to 2.4: Were these deviations likely to have affected the outcome?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
10. 2.6. (effect of assignment to intervention) Was an appropriate analysis used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention?
(modified) intention-to-treat analysis
Rating
Notes/Comments:
11. 2.7. (effect of assignment to intervention) If N/PN/NI to 2.6: Was there potential for a substantial impact (on the result) of the failure to analyse participants in the group to which they were randomized?
Should be <5% for crossover
Rating
Notes/Comments:
12. Risk-of-bias judgement
Rating
Notes/Comments:
13. 2.1. (effect of adhering to intervention) Were participants aware of their assigned intervention during the trial?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
14. 2.2. (effect of adhering to intervention) Were carers and people delivering the interventions aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
15. 2.3. (effect of adhering to intervention) If Y/PY/NI to 2.1 or 2.2: Were important co-interventions balanced across intervention groups?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
16. 2.4. (effect of adhering to intervention) Were there failures in implementing the intervention that could have affected the outcome?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
17. 2.5. (effect of adhering to intervention) Was there non-adherence to the assigned intervention regimen that could have affected participants’ outcomes?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
18. 2.6. (effect of adhering to intervention) If N/PN/NI to 2.3 or 2.5 or Y/PY/NI to 2.4: Was an appropriate analysis used to estimate the effect of adhering to the intervention?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
19. Risk-of-bias judgement
Rating
Notes/Comments:
20. 3.1. Were data for this outcome available for all, or nearly all, participants randomized?
Should be <10% lost to follow-up
Rating
Notes/Comments:
21. 3.2. If N/PN/NI to 3.1: Is there evidence that the result was not biased by missing outcome data?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
22. 3.3. If N/PN to 3.2: Could missingness in the outcome depend on its true value?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
23. 3.4. If Y/PY/NI to 3.3: Is it likely that missingness in the outcome depended on its true value?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
24. Risk-of-bias judgement
Rating
Notes/Comments:
25. 4.1. Was the method of measuring the outcome inappropriate?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
26. 4.2. Could measurement or ascertainment of the outcome have differed between intervention groups?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
27. 4.3. If N/PN/NI to 4.1 and 4.2: Were outcome assessors aware of the intervention received by study participants?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
28. 4.4. If Y/PY/NI to 4.3: Could assessment of the outcome have been influenced by knowledge of intervention received?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
29. 4.5. If Y/PY/NI to 4.4: Is it likely that assessment of the outcome was influenced by knowledge of intervention received?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
30. Risk-of-bias judgement
Rating
Notes/Comments:
31. 5.1. Were the data that produced this result analysed in accordance with a pre-specified analysis plan that was finalized before unblinded outcome data were available for analysis?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
32. 5.2. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple outcome measurements (e.g. scales, definitions, time points) within the outcome domain?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
33. 5.3. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple analyses of the data
Rating
Notes/Comments:
34. Risk-of-bias judgement
Rating
Notes/Comments:
35. Other potential bias
36. Overall Risk-of-bias judgement
Rating
Notes/Comments:

NRCS Risk of Bias Assessment

1. 1.1 Is there potential for confounding of the effect of intervention in this study?
In rare situations, such as when studying harms that are very unlikely to be related to factors that influence treatment decisions, no confounding is expected and the study can be considered to be at low risk of bias due to confounding, equivalent to a fully randomized trial. There is no NI (No information) option for this signalling question. If N/PN to 1.1: the study can be considered to be at low risk of bias due to confounding and no further signalling questions need be considered. If Y/PY to 1.1: determine whether there is a need to assess time-varying confounding:
Rating
Notes/Comments:
2. 1.2 Was the analysis based on splitting participants’ follow up time according to intervention received?
If participants could switch between intervention groups then associations between intervention and outcome may be biased by time-varying confounding. This occurs when prognostic factors influence switches between intended interventions. If N/PN, answer questions relating to baseline confounding (1.4 to 1.6). If Y/PY, proceed to question 1.3.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
3. 1.3 Were intervention discontinuations or switches likely to be related to factors that are prognostic for the outcome?
If intervention switches are unrelated to the outcome, for example when the outcome is an unexpected harm, then time-varying confounding will not be present and only control for baseline confounding is required.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
4. 1.4. Did the authors use an appropriate analysis method that controlled for all the important confounding domains?
Appropriate methods to control for measured confounders include stratification, regression, matching, standardization, and inverse probability weighting. They may control for individual variables or for the estimated propensity score. Inverse probability weighting is based on a function of the propensity score. Each method depends on the assumption that there is no unmeasured or residual confounding. if Propensity score matching/adjustment or equivalent, answer Y. If regression or other matching answer PY with a note reporting method. IMPORTANT CONFOUNDING DOMAINS defined by our team include: 1)age, 2)race/ethnicity, 3)at least one of the following factors: pre-existing DM, pre-existing HTN, obesity, prior preterm birth history, prior high risk pregnancy.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
5. 1.5. If Y/PY to 1.4: Were confounding domains that were controlled for measured validly and reliably by the variables available in this study?
Appropriate control of confounding requires that the variables adjusted for are valid and reliable measures of the confounding domains. For some topics, a list of valid and reliable measures of confounding domains will be specified in the review protocol but for others such a list may not be available. Study authors may cite references to support the use of a particular measure. If authors control for confounding variables with no indication of their validity or reliability pay attention to the subjectivity of the measure. Subjective measures (e.g. based on self-report) may have lower validity and reliability than objective measures such as lab findings.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
6. 1.6. Did the authors control for any post-intervention variables that could have been affected by the intervention?
Controlling for post-intervention variables that are affected by intervention is not appropriate. Controlling for mediating variables estimates the direct effect of intervention and may introduce bias. Controlling for common effects of intervention and outcome introduces bias.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
7. 1.7. Did the authors use an appropriate analysis method that adjusted for all the important confounding domains and for time-varying confounding?
Adjustment for time-varying confounding is necessary to estimate the effect of starting and adhering to intervention, in both randomized trials and NRSI. Appropriate methods include those based on inverse probability weighting. Standard regression models that include time-updated confounders may be problematic if time-varying confounding is present.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
8. 1.8. If Y/PY to 1.7: Were confounding domains that were adjusted for measured validly and reliably by the variables available in this study?
See 1.5 above
Rating
Notes/Comments:
9. 2.1. Was selection of participants into the study (or into the analysis) based on participant characteristics observed after the start of intervention?
This domain is concerned only with selection into the study based on participant characteristics observed after the start of intervention. Selection based on characteristics observed before the start of intervention can be addressed by controlling for imbalances between experimental intervention and comparator groups in baseline characteristics that are prognostic for the outcome (baseline confounding). If N/PN to 2.1: go to 2.4
Rating
Notes/Comments:
10. 2.2. If Y/PY to 2.1: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be associated with intervention?
Selection bias occurs when selection is related to an effect of either intervention or a cause of intervention and an effect of either the outcome or a cause of the outcome. Therefore, the result is at risk of selection bias if selection into the study is related to both the intervention and the outcome.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
11. 2.3 If Y/PY to 2.2: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be influenced by the outcome or a cause of the outcome?
Rating
Notes/Comments:
12. 2.4. Do start of follow-up and start of intervention coincide for most participants?
If participants are not followed from the start of the intervention then a period of follow up has been excluded, and individuals who experienced the outcome soon after intervention will be missing from analyses. This problem may occur when prevalent, rather than new (incident), users of the intervention are included in analyses.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
13. 2.5. If Y/PY to 2.2 and 2.3, or N/PN to 2.4: Were adjustment techniques used that are likely to correct for the presence of selection biases?
It is in principle possible to correct for selection biases, for example by using inverse probability weights to create a pseudo-population in which the selection bias has been removed, or by modelling the distributions of the missing participants or follow up times and outcome events and including them using missing data methodology. However such methods are rarely used and the answer to this question will usually be ‘No’.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
14. 3.1 Were intervention groups clearly defined?
A pre-requisite for an appropriate comparison of interventions is that the interventions are well defined. Ambiguity in the definition may lead to bias in the classification of participants. For individual-level interventions, criteria for considering individuals to have received each intervention should be clear and explicit, covering issues such as type, setting, dose, frequency, intensity and/or timing of intervention. For population-level interventions (e.g. measures to control air pollution), the question relates to whether the population is clearly defined, and the answer is likely to be ‘Yes’
Rating
Notes/Comments:
15. 3.2 Was the information used to define intervention groups recorded at the start of the intervention?
In general, if information about interventions received is available from sources that could not have been affected by subsequent outcomes, then differential misclassification of intervention status is unlikely. Collection of the information at the time of the intervention makes it easier to avoid such misclassification. For population-level interventions (e.g. measures to control air pollution), the answer to this question is likely to be ‘Yes’.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
16. 3.3 Could classification of intervention status have been affected by knowledge of the outcome or risk of the outcome?
Collection of the information at the time of the intervention may not be sufficient to avoid bias. The way in which the data are collected for the purposes of the NRSI should also avoid misclassification.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
17. 4.1. Were there deviations from the intended intervention beyond what would be expected in usual practice?
Deviations that happen in usual practice following the intervention (for example, cessation of a drug intervention because of acute toxicity) are part of the intended intervention and therefore do not lead to bias in the effect of assignment to intervention. Deviations may arise due to expectations of a difference between intervention and comparator (for example because participants feel unlucky to have been assigned to the comparator group and therefore seek the active intervention, or components of it, or other interventions). Such deviations are not part of usual practice, so may lead to biased effect estimates. However these are not expected in observational studies of individuals in routine care.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
18. 4.2. If Y/PY to 4.1: Were these deviations from intended intervention unbalanced between groups and likely to have affected the outcome?
Deviations from intended interventions that do not reflect usual practice will be important if they affect the outcome, but not otherwise. Furthermore, bias will arise only if there is imbalance in the deviations across the two groups.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
19. 4.3. Were important co-interventions balanced across intervention groups?
Risk of bias will be higher if unplanned co-interventions were implemented in a way that would bias the estimated effect of intervention. Co-interventions will be important if they affect the outcome, but not otherwise. Bias will arise only if there is imbalance in such co-interventions between the intervention groups. Consider the co-interventions, including any pre-specified co-interventions, that are likely to affect the outcome and to have been administered in this study. Consider whether these co-interventions are balanced between intervention groups.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
20. 4.4. Was the intervention implemented successfully for most participants?
Risk of bias will be higher if the intervention was not implemented as intended by, for example, the health care professionals delivering care during the trial. Consider whether implementation of the intervention was successful for most participants.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
21. 4.5. Did study participants adhere to the assigned intervention regimen?
Risk of bias will be higher if participants did not adhere to the intervention as intended. Lack of adherence includes imperfect compliance, cessation of intervention, crossovers to the comparator intervention and switches to another active intervention. Consider available information on the proportion of study participants who continued with their assigned intervention throughout follow up, and answer ‘No’ or ‘Probably No’ if this proportion is high enough to raise concerns. Answer ‘Yes’ for studies of interventions that are administered once, so that imperfect adherence is not possible.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
22. 4.6. If N/PN to 4.3, 4.4 or 4.5: Was an appropriate analysis used to estimate the effect of starting and adhering to the intervention?
It is possible to conduct an analysis that corrects for some types of deviation from the intended intervention. Examples of appropriate analysis strategies include inverse probability weighting or instrumental variable estimation. It is possible that a paper reports such an analysis without reporting information on the deviations from intended intervention, but it would be hard to judge such an analysis to be appropriate in the absence of such information. Specialist advice may be needed to assess studies that used these approaches. If everyone in one group received a co-intervention, adjustments cannot be made to overcome this.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
23. 5.1 Were outcome data available for all, or nearly all, participants?
‘Nearly all’ should be interpreted as ‘enough to be confident of the findings’, and a suitable proportion depends on the context. In some situations, availability of data from 95% (or possibly 90%) of the participants may be sufficient, providing that events of interest are reasonably common in both intervention groups. One aspect of this is that review authors would ideally try and locate an analysis plan for the study.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
24. 5.2 Were participants excluded due to missing data on intervention status?
Missing intervention status may be a problem. This requires that the intended study sample is clear, which it may not be in practice.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
25. 5.3 Were participants excluded due to missing data on other variables needed for the analysis?
This question relates particularly to participants excluded from the analysis because of missing information on confounders that were controlled for in the analysis.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
26. 5.4 If PN/N to 5.1, orY/PY to 5.2 or 5.3: Are the proportion of participants and reasons for missing data similar across interventions?
This aims to elicit whether either (i) differential proportion of missing observations or (ii) differences in reasons for missing observations could substantially impact on our ability to answer the question being addressed. ‘Similar’ includes some minor degree of discrepancy across intervention groups as expected by chance.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
27. 5.5 If PN/N to 5.1, orY/PY to 5.2 or 5.3: Is there evidence that results were robust to the presence of missing data?
Evidence for robustness may come from how missing data were handled in the analysis and whether sensitivity analyses were performed by the investigators, or occasionally from additional analyses performed by the systematic reviewers. It is important to assess whether assumptions employed in analyses are clear and plausible. Both content knowledge and statistical expertise will often be required for this. For instance, use of a statistical method such as multiple imputation does not guarantee an appropriate answer. Review authors should seek naïve (complete-case) analyses for comparison, and clear differences between complete-case and multiple imputation-based findings should lead to careful assessment of the validity of the methods used.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
28. 6.1 Could the outcome measure have been influenced by knowledge of the intervention received?
Some outcome measures involve negligible assessor judgment, e.g. all-cause mortality or non-repeatable automated laboratory assessments. Risk of bias due to measurement of these outcomes would be expected to be low.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
29. 6.2 Were outcome assessors aware of the intervention received by study participants?
If outcome assessors were blinded to intervention status, the answer to this question would be ‘No’. In other situations, outcome assessors may be unaware of the interventions being received by participants despite there being no active blinding by the study investigators; the answer this question would then also be‘No’. In studies where participants report their outcomes themselves, for example in a questionnaire, the outcome assessor is the study participant. In an observational study, the answer to this question will usually be ‘Yes’ when the participants report their outcomes themselves.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
30. 6.3 Were the methods of outcome assessment comparable across intervention groups?
Comparable assessment methods (i.e. data collection) would involve the same outcome detection methods and thresholds, same time point, same definition, and same measurements.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
31. 6.4 Were any systematic errors in measurement of the outcome related to intervention received?
This question refers to differential misclassification of outcomes. Systematic errors in measuring the outcome, if present, could cause bias if they are related to intervention or to a confounder of the intervention-outcome relationship. This will usually be due either to outcome assessors being aware of the intervention received or to non-comparability of outcome assessment methods, but there are examples of differential misclassification arising despite these controls being in place.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
32. 7.1. (Is the reported effect estimate likely to be selected, on the basis of the results, from) multiple outcome measurements within the outcome domain?
For a specified outcome domain, it is possible to generate multiple effect estimates for different measurements. If multiple measurements were made, but only one or a subset is reported, there is a risk of selective reporting on the basis of results.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
33. 7.2. (Is the reported effect estimate likely to be selected, on the basis of the results, from) multiple analyses of the intervention-outcome relationship?
Because of the limitations of using data from non-randomized studies for analyses of effectiveness (need to control confounding, substantial missing data, etc), analysts may implement different analytic methods to address these limitations. Examples include unadjusted and adjusted models; use of final value vs change from baseline vs analysis of covariance; different transformations of variables; a continuously scaled outcome converted to categorical data with different cut-points; different sets of covariates used for adjustment; and different analytic strategies for dealing with missing data. Application of such methods generates multiple estimates of the effect of the intervention versus the comparator on the outcome. If the analyst does not pre-specify the methods to be applied, and multiple estimates are generated but only one or a subset is reported, there is a risk of selective reporting on the basis of results.
Rating
Notes/Comments:
34. 7.3. (Is the reported effect estimate likely to be selected, on the basis of the results, from) different subgroups?
Particularly with large cohorts often available from routine data sources, it is possible to generate multiple effect estimates for different subgroups or simply to omit varying proportions of the original cohort. If multiple estimates are generated but only one or a subset is reported, there is a risk of selective reporting on the basis of results.
Rating
Notes/Comments:

Single Group Risk of Bias Assessment

N/A

Results

Categorical


Induction of labor

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)
Prior to labour
Total (N analyzed)
Difference in proportions
Events
95% CI low (Difference in proportions)
Percentage
95% CI high (Difference in proportions)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)

Spontaneous vaginal delivery

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)
At delivery
Total (N analyzed)
Difference in proportions
Events
95% CI low (Difference in proportions)
Percentage
95% CI high (Difference in proportions)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)

Patient satisfaction with antenatal care (With care provided by midwives )

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)
At birth
Total (N analyzed)
Difference in proportions
Events
95% CI low (Difference in proportions)
Percentage
95% CI high (Difference in proportions)
Mean Difference (MD)
95% CI low (MD)
95% CI high (MD)
p value (MD)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)

Patient satisfaction with antenatal care (With care provided by family doctors)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)
At birth
Total (N analyzed)
Difference in proportions
Events
95% CI low (Difference in proportions)
Percentage
95% CI high (Difference in proportions)
Mean Difference (MD)
95% CI low (MD)
95% CI high (MD)
p value (MD)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)

Patient satisfaction with antenatal care (With care provided by hospital)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)
At birth
Total (N analyzed)
Difference in proportions
Events
95% CI low (Difference in proportions)
Percentage
95% CI high (Difference in proportions)
Mean Difference (MD)
95% CI low (MD)
95% CI high (MD)
p value (MD)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)

Gestational hypertension (Hypertension identified)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)
N/A
Total (N analyzed)
Difference in proportions
Events
95% CI low (Difference in proportions)
Percentage
95% CI high (Difference in proportions)
Mean Difference (MD)
95% CI low (MD)
95% CI high (MD)
p value (MD)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)

Small for gestational age (Diagnosed)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)
Prior to labour
Total (N analyzed)
Difference in proportions
Mean
95% CI low (Difference in proportions)
SD
95% CI high (Difference in proportions)
SD
Mean Difference (MD)
95% CI low (MD)
95% CI high (MD)
p value (MD)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)

Neonatal intensive care unit [NICU] admission (Admitted to neonatal unit )

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
At delivery
Total (N analyzed)
Difference in proportions
Events
95% CI low (Difference in proportions)
Percentage
95% CI high (Difference in proportions)
Mean Difference (MD)
95% CI low (MD)
95% CI high (MD)
p value (MD)
Odds Ratio (OR)
95% CI low (OR)
95% CI high (OR)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule

Glucose tolerance test performed

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)
NR
Total (N analyzed)
Difference in proportions
Events
95% CI low (Difference in proportions)
Percentage
95% CI high (Difference in proportions)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)

Continuous


Birth weight

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)
At delivery (kg)
Total (N analyzed)
Mean Difference (MD)
Mean
95% CI low (MD)
SD
95% CI high (MD)
SD
SD (MD)
p value (MD)
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)

Gestational age at birth (Gestation at delivery)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)
N/A (d)
Total (N analyzed)
Mean Difference (MD)
Mean
95% CI low (MD)
SD
95% CI high (MD)
SD
SD (MD)
p value (MD)
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)

Abnormal Apgar score (threshold, e.g. <7)* (including abnormal cord pH [e.g., <7]) (Apgar score at 5 minutes )

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)
At delivery
Total (N analyzed)
Mean Difference (MD)
Mean
95% CI low (MD)
SD
95% CI high (MD)
SD
SD (MD)
p value (MD)
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)

Total number of visits

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)
N/A
Total (N analyzed)
Mean Difference (MD)
Mean
95% CI low (MD)
SD
95% CI high (MD)
p value (MD)
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
More intensive antenatal visits scheduleLess intensive antenatal visits schedule
More intensive antenatal visits schedule (Traditional...)
vs.
Less intensive antenatal visits schedule (Flexible care)