Fostering Excellence in Obstetrical Surgery

References

• Betran AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, et al. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Global Health. 2021;6(6):e005671. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu ML, Nichols PM, Cormick G, Betran AP, Gibbons L, Belizan JM. Global inequities in cesarean section deliveries and required resources persist. Eur J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;285:31–40. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.03.036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner MJ. Delivery after a previous cesarean section reviewed. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2023:1–6. doi:10.1002/ijgo.14854
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruno AM, Allshouse AA, Metz TD. Trends in attempted and successful trial of labor after cesarean delivery in the United States From 2010 to 2020. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141:173–175. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004998
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Operative vaginal birth. ACOG practice bulletin No. 219. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:e149–59. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003764
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panelli DM, Leonard SA, Joudi N, et al. Clinical and physician factors associated with failed operative vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141:1181–1189. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005181
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maged AM, El-Mazny A, Kamal N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in the diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23:354. doi:10.1186/s12884-023-05675-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdel Wahab M, Cackovic M. Placenta accreta spectrum and postpartum hemorrhage. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2023. doi:10.1097/GRF.0000000000000783
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campos MG, Franco-Sena AB, Rebelo F. Direct standardization method according to Robson classification for comparison of cesarean rates. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23:117. doi:10.1186/s12884-023-05416-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberge S, Dubé E, Blouin S, Chaillet N. Reporting caesarean delivery in Quebec using the Robson classification system. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39(3):152e156. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2016.10.0102017
   Google Scholar
• Quibel T, Rozenberg P, Bouyer C, Bouyer J. Variation between hospital caesarean delivery rates when Robson’s classification is considered: an observational study from a French perinatal network. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0251141. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251141
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaxi P, Gourounti K, Vivilaki V, et al. Implementation of the Robson classification in Greece: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Healthcare. 2023;11:908. doi:10.3390/healthcare11060908
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saccone G, Angelis MC, Zizolfi B, et al. Monofilament vs multifilament suture for uterine closure at the time of cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;4:1005592. doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100592
   Google Scholar
• Khanuja K, Burd J, Ozcan P, Peleg D, Saccone G. Suture type for hysterotomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;4:100726. doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100726
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raischer HB, Massalha M, Iskander R, Izhaki I, Salim R. Knotless barbed versus conventional suture for closure of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2022;29:832–839. doi:10.1016/j.jimg.2022.05.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agarwal S, D-Souza R, Ryu M, Maxwell C. Barbed vs conventional suture at cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100:1010–1018. doi:10.1111/aogs.14080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberge S, Demers S, Berghella V, Chaillet N, Moore L, Bujold E. Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:453–460. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fay E, Sultan P, Bollag L. Cesarean delivery. In: Nelson G, Ramirez PT, Dowdy SC, Wilson RD, Scott MJ, editors. The ERAS Society Handbook for Obstetrics and Gynecology. Academic Press; 2022. ISBN 978-0-323-91208-2; Surgical Techniques. 261.
   Google Scholar
• Caughey AB, Stephen L, Wood SL, et al. Guidelines for intraoperative care in caesarean delivery: enhanced recovery after surgery society recommendations (Part 2). Amer J Obstet Gynecol. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.08.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchand GJ, Masoud A, Ruther S, et al. Effect of single- and double-layer cesarean section closure on residual myometrial thickness and isthmocele- A systematic review and meta-analysis. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;18:322–332. doi:10.4246/tjog.galenos.2021.71173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qayam K, Kar I, Sofi J, Panneerselvam H. Single-verses double-layer uterine closure after cesarean section delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus. 2021;13(9):e18405. doi:10.7759/cureus.18405
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stegwee HB, Jordans IPM, van der Voet LF, et al. Uterine caesarean closure techniques affect ultrasound findings and maternal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2018;125:1097–1108. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Spiezo Sardo A, Saccone G, McCurdy R, Bujold E, Bifulco G, Bergella V. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;30:578–583. doi:10.1002/uog.17401
   Google Scholar
• Huire JAF, Stegwee SI, van der Voet LF, de Groot CJM, Hehenkamp WJK, Brolmann HAM. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50:662–668. doi:10.1002/uog.18893
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bubny-Winska J, Zimmer-Stelmach A, Pomorski M. Impact of selected risk factors on uterine healing after cesarean section in women with single-layer uterine closure: a prospective study using two- and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2022;31(1):41–48. doi:10.17219/acem/142519
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalem Z, Kaya AE, Bakirarar B, Basbug A, Kalem MN. An optimal uterine closure technique for better scar healing and avoiding isthmocele in cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. J Invest Surg. 2021;34(2):148–156. doi:10.1080/08941939.2019.1610530
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tahermanesh K, Mirgalobayat S, Aziz-Ahari A, et al. Babu and Magon uterine closure technique during cesarean section: a randomized double-blind trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(9):3186–3195. doi:10.1111/jog.14889
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madhavi BK. Letter to “Babu and Magon uterine closure technique during cesarean section: a randomized double-blind trial”. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(12):4504–4505. doi:10.1111/jog.15026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elkhouly NI, Abdelaal NK, Solyman AE, Elkelani OA, Elbasueny BF, Elhalaby AF. A new technique for uterine incision closure at the time of caesarean section: does it make a difference? J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;42(3):416–423. doi:10.1080/01443615.2021.1910636
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Erkayiran U, Arslanca T. Comparative analysis of classical primary continuous and novel technique uterine suturing methods on uterine scar formation after caesarean section: a prospective clinical study. Gynekologia Polska. 2022;93(7):552–557. doi:10.5603/GP.a2022.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arakaza A, Zou L, Zhu J. Placenta accreta spectrum diagnosis challenges and controversies in current obstetrics: a review. Int J Women’s Health. 2023;15:635–654. doi:10.2147/IJWH.S395271
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramlakhan J, Foster AM, Grace SL, et al. What constitutes patient-centred care for women: a theoretical rapid review. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18:182. doi:10.1186/s12939-019-1048-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meiman J, Grobman WA, Haas DM, et al. Association of neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage and postpartum readmission. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141(5):967–970. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kern-Goldberger AR, Srinivas SK. Editorial: variation as evidence of preventability. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141(5):875–876. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005162
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Admon LK, Auty SG, Daw JR, et al. State variation in severe maternal morbidity among individuals with Medicaid insurance. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141(5):877–885. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druyan B, Platner M, Jamieson DJ, Boulet SL. Severe maternal morbidity and postpartum readmission through one year. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141(5):949–955. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howell EA, Brown H, Brumley J, et al. Reduction of peripartum racial and ethnic disparities: a conceptual framework and maternal safety consensus bundle. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(5):770–782. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002475
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howell EA, Ahmed ZN. Eight steps for narrowing the maternal health disparity gap: step-by-step plan to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in care. Contemp Ob Gyn. 2019;64(1):30–36. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.1150
   Google Scholar
• Howell EA, Brown H, Brumley J, et al. Reduction of peripartum racial and ethnic disparities: a conceptual framework and maternal safety consensus bundle. JOGNN. 2018;47:275–289. doi:10.1016/j.jogn.2018.03.004
   Google Scholar
• Grechukkina O, Lipkind HS, Lundsberg LS, et al. Severe maternal morbidity review and preventability assessment in a large academic center. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141(4):875–880. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005116
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilpatrick SK, Ecker JL, Callaghan WM. Severe maternal morbidity screening and review. Obstetric care consensus No. 5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:e54–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvard Health Publishing. Trauma-informed care: What it is, and why it’s important. Available from: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/trauma-informed-care-what-it-is-and-why-its-important-2018101613562. Accessed June 23, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson RD. The real maternal risks in a pregnancy: a structured review to enhance maternal understanding and education. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2019.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hui L, Ellis K, Mayen D, et al. Position statement from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis on the use of non-invasive prenatal testing for the detection of fetal chromosomal conditions in singleton pregnancies. Prenat Diagnosis. 2023;43:814–828. doi:10.1002/pd.6357
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• APHP. Quality & Innovation. Available from: https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/info/Page16940.aspx. Accessed May 15, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Crowl A, Sharma A, Sorge L, Sorensen T. Accelerating quality improvement within your organization: applying the Model for Improvement. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2015;55(4):e364–74. doi:10.1331/JAPhA.2015.15533
   Google Scholar
• Schwendimann R, Blatter C, Lüthy M, et al. Adherence to the WHO surgical safety checklist: an observational study in a Swiss academic center. Patient Safe Surg. 2019;13:14. doi:10.1186/s13037-019-0194-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson RD, Caughey AB, Wood SL, et al. Guidelines for antenatal and preoperative care in cesarean delivery: enhanced recovery after surgery society recommendations (Part 1). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219:523.e1–523.e15. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macones GA, Caughey AB, Wood SL, et al. Guidelines for postoperative care in cesarean delivery: enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations (part 3). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:247.e1–9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2019.04.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, et al. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean delivery in 21 countries: a secondary assessment of two WHO multi-country surveys. Lancet Global Health. 2015;3:e260–e270. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farine D, Shepherd D, Robson M, et al. Classification of Caesarean Sections in Canada: the Modified Robson Criteria. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34(10):976–979. doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35412-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abdelwahab M, Lynch CD, Schneider P, et al. Postoperative complications after non-obstetric surgery among pregnant patients in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, 2005-2012. Am J Surg. 2022;223(2):364–369. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.04.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haskins IN, Rosen MJ, Prabhu AS, et al. Umbilical hernia repair in pregnant patients: review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Hernia. 2017;21:767–770. doi:10.1007/s10029-017-1633-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood S, Skiffington J, Brant R, et al. The REDUCED Trial. A cluster randomized trial REDucing the Utilization of CEsarean Delivery for Dystocia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2022.10.038
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lauterbach R, Justman N, Ginsberg Y, et al. The impact of extending the second stage of labor on repeat cesarean section and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2023;163:594–600. doi:10.1002/ijgo.14855
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Janani L, Christina S, Akoijam BS, Nameirakpam D, Laiphrakpam RS. Analysis of cesarean section rates and its indications using robson’s classification at a tertiary care hospital, Manipur. Indian J Public Health. 2022;66(4):434–438. doi:10.4103/ijph.ijph_1928_21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murraca GM, Joesp KS, Razaz N, Ladfors LV, Lisonkova S, Stephansson O. Crude and adjusted comparisons of cesarean delivery rates using the Robson classification: a population-based cohort study in Canada and Sweden, 2004 to 2016. PLoS Med. 2022;19:e1004077. doi:10.1371/journalpmed.1004077
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan MB, Petrey J, Robertson P, Curmutte M, Jennings JAC. An exploration of barriers to access to trial of labor and vaginal birth after caesarean in the United States: a scoping review. J Perinat Med. 2023;51:981–991. doi:10.1515/jpm-2022-0364
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberge S, Boutin A, Bujold E, Dube E, Blouin S, Chaillet N. Impact of audits and multifaceted intervention on vaginal birth after caesarean: secondary analysis of the QUARISMA trail. J Obstet Gynecol Can. 2019;41:608–615. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2018.05.044
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph KS, Young CB, Muraca GM, et al. Hospital factors associated with maternal and neonatal outcomes of deliveries to patients with a previous caesarean delivery: an ecological study. CMAJ. 2023;195:E178–86. doi:10.1503/cmaj.220928
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koppes DM, van Hees MSF, Koenders VM, et al. Nationwide implementation of a decision aid on vaginal birth after cesarean: a before and after cohort study. J Perinat Med. 2021;49(7):783–790. doi:10.1515/jpm-2021-0007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monari F, Menichini D, Bertucci E, Neri I, Perrone E, Facchinetti F. Implementation of Guidelines about women with previous cesarean section through educational/motivational interventions. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2022;159:810–816. doi:10.1002/ijgo.14212
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muraca GM, Boutin A, Razaz N, et al. Maternal and neonatal trauma following operative vaginal delivery. CMAJ. 2022;194:E1–12. doi:10.1503/cmaj.210841
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mappa I, Tartaglia S, Maquina P, et al. Ultrasound vs routine care before instrumental vaginal delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100:1941–1948. doi:10.1111/aogs.14236
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jurczuk M, Bidwell P, Gurol-Urganci I, et al. The OASI care bundle quality improvement project: lessons learned and future directions. Inter Urogynecol J. 2021;32:1989–1995. doi:10.1007/s00192-021-04786-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ACOG. Placenta accreta spectrum. Obstetric Care Consensus No 7. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:e259–75. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002983
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shimshinaz AA, Fox KA, Salmanian B, et al. Maternal morbidity in patients with morbidly adherent placenta treated with and without a standardized multidisciplinary approach. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(2):218.e1–9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.08.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatta LA, Boyd BK, Einerson BD, et al. Validation of a sonographic checklist for the detection of histologic placenta accreta spectrum. AJOGMF. 2023. doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.101017
   Google Scholar
• Patel-Lippmann KK, Planz VB, Phillips CH, Ohlendorf JM, Zuckerwise LC, Moshiri M. Placenta accreta spectrum disorders: updates and pictorial review of the SAR-ESUR Joint Consensus Statement for MRI. Radiographics. 2023;43(5):e220090. doi:10.1148/rg.220090
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jauniaux E, Ayres-de-Campos D, Langhoff-Roos J, Fox KA, Collins S. FIGO classification for the clinical diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum disorders. FIGO Placenta Accreta Diagnosis and Management Expert Consensus Panel. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;146:20–24. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12661
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jauniaux E, Ayres-de-campos D. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: introduction. FIGO Placenta Accreta Diagnosis and Management Expert Consensus Panel. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;140(3):261–264. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12406
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jauniaux E, Chantraine F, Silver RM, Langhoff-Roos J. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: epidemiology. FIGO Placenta Accreta Diagnosis and Management Expert Consensus Panel. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;140(3):265–273. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12407
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sentilhes L, Kayem G, Chandraharan E, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, Jauniaux E. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: conservative management. FIGO Placenta Accreta Diagnosis and Management Expert Consensus Panel. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;140(3):291–298. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12410
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jauniaux E, Bhide A, Kennedy A, Woodward P, Hubinont C, Collins S. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: prenatal diagnosis and screening. FIGO Placenta Accreta Diagnosis and Management Expert Consensus Panel. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;140(3):274–280. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12408
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen L, Jauniaux E, Hobson S, Papillon-Smith J, Belfort MA. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: nonconservative surgical management. FIGO placenta accreta diagnosis and management expert consensus panel. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;140(3):281–290. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12409
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quist-Nelson J, Crank A, Oliver EA, et al. The compliance with a patient-safety bundle for management of placental accreta spectrum. J Maternal Fetal Neonat Med. 2019;34:17,2880–2886. doi:10.1018/14767058.2019.1671349
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieto-Calvache AJ, Palacios-Jaraquemada JM, Vergara-Galliadi LM, et al. All maternal deaths related to placenta accreta spectrum are preventable: a difficult-to-tell reality. Am J Obster Gynecol Glob Rep. 2021;1:100012. doi:10.1016/j.xagr.2021.100012
   Google Scholar
• Nieto-Calvache AJ, Trevino PM, Garcia de laTorre JI. Gomz Priorities for improving care in the placenta accreta spectrum. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2022;157:198–209. doi:10.1002/ijog.14011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobson SR, Kingdom JCP, Windrim RC, et al. Safer outcomes for placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a decade of quality improvement. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2022;157:130–139. doi:10.1002/ijgo.13717
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ban Y, Shen J, Wang X, et al. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy clinical classification system with recommended surgical strategy. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141(5):927–936. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters S, Sukumar K, Blanchard S, et al. Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review. Implement Sci. 2022;17:50. doi:10.1186/s13012-022-01223-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell BJ, Fernandez ME, Williams NJ, et al. Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: a research agenda. Front Public Health. 2019;7(3). doi:10.3389/fpubh.2019.0000
   Google Scholar
• Fischer F, Lange K, Klose K, Greiner W, Kraemeret A. Barriers and strategies in guideline implementation—a scoping review. Healthcare. 2016;4:36. doi:10.3390/healthcare4030036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaajala M, Liukkonen R, Ponkilainen V, Kekki M, Mattila VM, Kuitunen I. The rates of vaginal births after cesarean section have increased during the last decades: a nationwide register-based cohort study in Finland. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023;308:157–162. doi:10.1007/s00404-023-07010-y]
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wen SW, Kramer MS. Uses of ecologic studies in the assessment of intended treatment effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(1):7–12. doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00136-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane D, Wall E, Malone E, et al. A retrospective cohort study of the characteristics of unsuccessful operative vaginal deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023;26(285):159–163. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.04.02
   Google Scholar
• Gundersen L. The effect of clinical practice guidelines on variations in care. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(4):317–318. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-133-4-200008150-00102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braithwaite J, Glasziou P, Westbrook J. The three numbers you need to know about healthcare: the 60-30-10 challenge. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):102. doi:10.1186/s12916-020-0156
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braithwaite J. Changing how we think about healthcare improvement. BMJ. 2018;361:k2014. doi:10.1136/bmj.k2014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. Tackling Wasteful Spending on Health. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Health Care Services, Board on Global Health, Committee on Improving the Quality of Health Care Globally. Crossing the Global Quality Chasm: Improving Health Care Worldwide. Washington DC: National Academies Press (US); 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Cassidy CE, Harrison MB, Godfrey C, et al. Use and effects of implementation strategies for practice guidelines in nursing: a systematic review. Implementation Science. 2021;16:102. doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01165-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grol R. Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care. 2001;39(8 Suppl 2):II46–54. doi:10.1097/00005650-200108002-00003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rycroft-Malone J, Burton CR, Wilkinson J, et al. Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):17. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0380-z
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sheldon TA, Cullum N, Dawson D, et al. What’s the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients’ notes, and interviews. BMJ. 2004;329(7473):999. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7473.999
   PubMedGoogle Scholar