Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 360

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating Obstetrical Residency Programs Using Patient Outcomes

Open access
Asch, David A.·2009·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Patient outcomes have been used to assess the performance of hospitals and physicians; in contrast, residency programs have been compared based on nonclinical measures. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether obstetrics and gynecology residency programs can be evaluated by the quality of care their alumni deliver. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A retrospective analysis of all Florida and New York obstetrical hospital discharges between 1992 and 2007, representing 4 906 169 deliveries performed by 4124 obstetricians from 107 US residency programs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Nine measures of maternal complications from vaginal and cesarean births reflecting laceration, hemorrhage, and all other complications after vaginal delivery; hemorrhage, infection, and all other complications after cesarean delivery; and composites for vaginal and cesarean deliveries and for all deliveries regardless of mode. RESULTS: Obstetricians' residency program was associated with substantial variation in maternal complication rates. Women treated by obstetricians trained in residency programs in the bottom quintile for risk-standardized major maternal complication rates had an adjusted complication rate of 13.6%, approximately one-third higher than the 10.3% adjusted rate for women treated by obstetricians from programs in the top quintile (absolute difference, 3.3%; 95% confidence interval, 2.8%-3.8%). The rankings of residency programs based on each of the 9 measures were similar. Adjustment for medical licensure examination scores did not substantially alter the program ranking. CONCLUSIONS: Obstetrics and gynecology training programs can be ranked by the maternal complication rates of their graduates' patients. These rankings are stable across individual types of complications and are not associated with residents' licensing examination scores.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2009.1356

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 360

Metadata

Authors
Asch, D. A.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2009-09-23
Volume
302
Issue
12
Pages
1277
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1585496667
Cited by
360
References
20
FWCI
4.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating Obstetrical Residency Programs Using Patient Outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2009.1356
The paper
Asch, D. A. (2009). Evaluating Obstetrical Residency Programs Using Patient Outcomes. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1356

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.