Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 566

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does training in obstetric emergencies improve neonatal outcome?

Draycott, Tim, Sibanda, Thabani, Owen, Louise, Akande, Valentine, Winter, Cathy, Reading, Sandra, Whitelaw, Andrew·2006·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Objectives To determine whether the introduction of Obstetrics Emergency Training in line with the recommendations of the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts (CNST) was associated with a reduction in perinatal asphyxia and neonatal hypoxic–ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE). Design A retrospective cohort observational study. Setting A tertiary referral maternity unit in a teaching hospital. Population Term, cephalic presenting, singleton infants born at Southmead Hospital between 1998 and 2003 were identified; those born by elective Caesarean sections were excluded. Method Five‐minute Apgar scores were reviewed. Infants that developed HIE were prospectively identified throughout this period. The study compared the period ‘pre‐training’ (1998–1999), with the period ‘post‐training’ (2001–2003). Main outcome measures Five‐minute Apgar scores and HIE. Results Infants (19,460) were included. Infants born with 5‐minute Apgar scores of ≤6 decreased from 86.6 to 44.6 per 10,000 births (P < 0.001) and those with HIE decreased from 27.3 to 13.6 per 10,000 births (P= 0.032) following the introduction of the training courses in 2000. Antepartum and intrapartum stillbirth at term rates remained unchanged, at about 15 and 4 per 10,000 births, respectively. Conclusion The introduction of obstetric emergencies training courses was associated with a significant reduction in low 5‐minute Apgar scores and HIE. This improvement has been sustained as the training has continued. This is the first time an educational intervention has been shown to be associated with a clinically important, and sustained, improvement in perinatal outcome.

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 · 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00800.x

Cites

17 of 17 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 17 references

Cited by

See all 566

Metadata

Authors
Draycott, T., Sibanda, T., Owen, L., Akande, V., Winter, C., Reading, S., & Whitelaw, A.
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-01-13
Volume
113
Issue
2
Pages
177-182
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W1991654947
Cited by
566
References
17
FWCI
19.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Does training in obstetric emergencies improve neonatal outcome? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00800.x
The paper
Draycott, T., Sibanda, T., Owen, L., Akande, V., Winter, C., Reading, S., & Whitelaw, A. (2006). Does training in obstetric emergencies improve neonatal outcome? BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00800.x

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.