Use of evidence from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System in policy and clinical practice: a descriptive study using citation tracking

Keywords altmetrics, bibliometrics, clinical guidelines, impact, Overton, policy research, research evaluation, UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) ALL Metrics - Views Downloads How to cite this article Tunn R and Knight M. Use of evidence from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System in policy and clinical practice: a descriptive study using citation tracking [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2026, 6:5 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14196.1) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente Select a format first ▬ ✚ Research Article [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] Ruth Tunn https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1187-1808 1, Marian Knight https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1984-4575 1Ruth Tunn https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1187-1808 1, Marian Knight https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1984-4575 1 PUBLISHED 08 Jan 2026 Author details Author details 1 National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, OX3 7LF, UK Ruth Tunn Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Marian Knight Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW REVIEWER STATUS The UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) was established in 2005 for research into uncommon disorders of pregnancy. This study explored the use in policy and clinical guidelines of evidence generated through UKOSS during its 20-year history, in order to inform approaches to increase the impact of future studies conducted through the platform. We searched Overton (24 September 2025) and Altmetric (6 October 2025) using the DOIs of articles reporting research conducted using UKOSS to identify citations in clinical guidelines and policy documents. We summarised citation frequency and characteristics of citing documents and organisations, and calculated the time between article publication and citation. For the most highly-cited articles, we explored the context of citations in a series of case studies. A total of 308 unique citations of the 96 articles reporting UKOSS studies were detected, and 62/96 articles (65%) were cited in at least one policy document or clinical guideline. A third of citations were by organisations based in the UK and Ireland, and citations were roughly evenly split between clinical guidelines (53%) and policy publications (46%). The median delay between publication of an article and citation in policy documents/guidelines was 220.8 weeks (range 0.3–904.7 weeks). The context of citations varied, and included providing rationale for specific clinical recommendations such as prioritisation of pregnant women for vaccinations and management of the conditions investigated; supplying evidence for equality guidance and impact assessment; and providing more general background on risk, burden, and/or outcomes. Evidence from studies conducted via the UKOSS platform has been used extensively in policy documents and clinical guidance in the UK and globally. Consideration should be given to how to speed up knowledge translation to allow pregnant women and their babies to benefit from evidence-based policies and practice with minimum delays. The UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) involves a network of reporting staff based across all UK consultant-led maternity units. These reporters record anonymous information about all pregnant women who experience certain uncommon conditions during pregnancy. This provides strong, nationwide evidence about conditions that are otherwise difficult to study because they are so uncommon. We wanted to understand how this evidence has been used in clinical practice and healthcare policy. In the 20 years since UKOSS was founded, 96 articles have been published that used UKOSS to collect data. We used online databases to find where these articles have been mentioned in two types of documents: policy documents, such as reports written by government departments and thinktanks; and clinical guidelines that medical staff use to decide how to treat patients. About two-thirds of UKOSS articles had been mentioned at least once in a policy document or clinical guideline. On average, there was a gap of about four years between the article being published and the results being cited, which is a longer delay than we would like. However, the results of older studies are also still being used up to 17 years after the articles were published. This suggests UKOSS evidence is meeting an important need for information that users cannot easily get from other places. The evidence was used in many different ways. For example, one study looked at pregnant women who ended up in hospital with Covid-19. This study’s results led to several countries making pregnant women a priority group for vaccination. NHS England also introduced measures to protect pregnant black and minority ethnic women, who had a particularly high risk of serious illness. Going forward, we want UKOSS evidence to be used even more often, widely, and quickly so that more mothers, babies and families can benefit sooner. altmetrics, bibliometrics, clinical guidelines, impact, Overton, policy research, research evaluation, UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) Corresponding Author(s) Ruth Tunn ([email protected]) Grant information: This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Grant Reference Number NIHR3038060. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2026 Tunn R and Knight M. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Tunn R and Knight M. Use of evidence from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System in policy and clinical practice: a descriptive study using citation tracking [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2026, 6:5 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14196.1) First published: 08 Jan 2026, 6:5 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14196.1) Latest published: 08 Jan 2026, 6:5 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14196.1) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) was established in 2005 as a single, nationwide platform for research into uncommon disorders of pregnancy. UKOSS gathers data to describe the incidence, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of these conditions (typically with an expected incidence of fewer than one in 2000 births) occurring during pregnancy1,2. Because they are uncommon, such conditions are difficult to study: a large study population is required to generate meaningful data. Clinical practice therefore typically lacks a robust evidence base. However, while individually uncommon, the collective burden of such conditions is considerable, both to affected women and to healthcare systems. As a nationwide data collection system, UKOSS covers a large enough population to make the study of uncommon conditions possible2. Clinicians and other researchers can propose conditions for study using the UKOSS platform, meaning that the choice of conditions investigated is primarily driven by clinical need for evidence1. The UKOSS steering committee reviews proposals and assists in shaping a data collection form that can be completed from routinely collected data and medical notes. We are aware from stakeholder feedback of changes to practice resulting from evidence generated through UKOSS. Perhaps the most notable recent example of these occurred during the SARS-CoV-2019 pandemic, when a UKOSS study identified that pregnant women from Black and minority ethnic groups were at substantially higher risk of severe COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation compared with white pregnant women3. This led to guidance being issued to all maternity units in England advising four actions aimed at minimizing this additional risk4. Foreshadowing this, a decade earlier, evidence generated through UKOSS during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic underpinned recognition of pregnant women as a vulnerable group and their prioritization for early antiviral treatment5. UK vaccination policy was also revised to recommend annual seasonal influenza vaccination for pregnant women6. However, there have been no systematic attempts to track the extent of the use of UKOSS evidence in policy and clinical guidance, or to evaluate who is using the evidence, and when, where and how. The emerging online platforms Overton7 and Altmetric8 aim to facilitate exploration of such questions about research use by tracking citations of published research articles in policy documents and clinical guidelines9. We previously evaluated these resources as a means of understanding the use of research generated through the NIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care10. We found that although citation tracking cannot provide a comprehensive accounting of research impact, it can provide informative insights into the relevance and reach of evidence, and when and how research is used by policymakers. The aim of this study was to use Overton and Altmetric to explore, via citation metrics and case studies of highly cited articles, the use in policy and clinical guidelines of evidence generated through UKOSS in the 20 years since the platform’s inception, in order to inform ways to improve the impact of the research. Patients and the public were not involved in the design of this study. Feedback on the findings was provided by the UKOSS steering group, which includes patient representatives, prior to reporting. The UKOSS coordination team maintains a list of articles published on the basis of studies undertaken using the UKOSS platform. We used this list as the main source of articles for this study. We also searched PubMed (all fields) using the query ‘UKOSS OR “UK Obstetric Surveillance System”’ to identify any relevant articles that were missing from the internal list. This search was run on 9 December 2024 and updated on 24 September 2025. We extracted articles in the internal list and the results of the PubMed search to EndNote and excluded duplicates. One author (RT) screened the titles and abstracts and, if necessary, the full texts to identify studies that used the UKOSS platform (alone or in combination with other surveillance systems) to investigate disorders of pregnancy. We excluded the following: Editorials commenting on UKOSS or UKOSS studies/articles that explained the UKOSS methodology without presenting new data Studies that did not use UKOSS to collect data (e.g., those that used UKOSS definitions or used UKOSS as a model system) Studies that used published UKOSS data in comparisons, but were not undertaken through UKOSS Articles in which UKOSS was mentioned only in declarations of interest Articles in which UKOSS was not mentioned The proprietary research tools Overton7 and Altmetric8 were used under institutional licence for this study. The rationales for methodological decisions are discussed in more detail elsewhere10. We searched Overton and Altmetric using the digital object identifiers (DOIs) of the identified UKOSS articles. These searches were conducted on 9 (Altmetric) and 13 (Overton) December 2024 and updated on 24 September 2025 (Overton) and 6 October 2025 (Altmetric). We filtered the Altmetric search results to return citations in ‘policy sources’ and ‘clinical guidelines’ using the platform’s classification of source type. We extracted the following information, as provided by the search platform, about documents identified by the searches: bibliographic details of the cited article (title, DOI); type and country of the citing organisation; type of citing document, and date of citation. We obtained from publishers’ websites the dates that the cited articles were first made available online. One author (RT) screened the full text of all policy documents and clinical guidelines returned by the search and extracted the text where the UKOSS article was cited. We excluded the following: Documents that cited the UKOSS study on a list of excluded sources Academic journal articles Cochrane reviews Investigators’ brochures MBRRACE-UK (Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK) reports of maternal confidential enquiries Documents that were found to not actually cite a UKOSS article Documents that could not be obtained in full to verify the context of the citation The rationale for excluding MBRRACE-UK confidential enquiry reports was to obtain a conservative count of policy and guideline citations. Although the MBRRACE-UK confidential enquiries present policy recommendations, they are led by the same institution that hosts UKOSS (the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit at the University of Oxford) and the two workstreams inform each other. This exclusion criterion avoided any over-inflation of citation counts owing to “self-citation”. For the purposes of counting “unique” citations, we merged the following types of overlapping documents to count as a single citation: Translations of a document into multiple languages The same document published by a single organisation in multiple locations Documents co-authored by multiple organisations and published by more than one of the author organisations Multiple editions or versions of the same document Catalogue records for a document and the document itself Simultaneous publication of a clinical guideline in multiple journals We counted multiple references to an article in a single policy document or guideline as one citation, and references to multiple UKOSS articles in the same document as one citation per article. The number of onward citations in further policy documents of the documents that cited the original research was extracted from the Overton search output before merging overlapping documents. We used MS Excel for all analyses. The number of unique citations per article is summarised as median and range. Publication latency was calculated as the time from first availability of an article online, as reported on the publisher’s website, to the date the article was cited, as reported by Overton or Altmetric. Where overlapping versions of citing documents were merged to count as a single citation, the publication date of the earliest-published citing document version was used for latency calculations. Geographic distribution of citations was visualised using Datawrapper (https://app.datawrapper.de/). We identified the five articles with the largest number of citations in policy documents and guidelines and provide a descriptive analysis of citation context. We also searched Altmetric by article DOI for mentions of these articles in the mainstream media and describe coverage in prominent outlets. We identified 96 published articles that used the UKOSS platform to investigate disorders of pregnancy3,5,11–104. Searching Overton and Altmetric by the DOIs of these articles yielded 308 unique citations after exclusion of ineligible citations and merging overlapping and duplicate documents (Figure 1). Of these, 180 (58%) were identified only by Overton, 91 (30%) were identified only by Altmetric, and 37 (12%) were returned by both tools. Of the 96 articles reporting UKOSS studies, 62 (65%) were cited in at least one policy document or clinical guideline. Characteristics of citing documents and organisations are presented in Table 1. A third of citations were by organisations based in the UK and Ireland, and organisations based in other high-income and majority English-speaking countries provided the majority of the remaining two thirds of citations. Figure 2 shows the geographic distribution of citations. The types of citing document were roughly evenly split between clinical guidelines (53%) and policy publications (46%) (Table 1). | Primary UKOSS studies (n = 96) | | |---|---| | Total number of unique policy citations | 308 | | Citations per article (median, range) | 2 (0–50) | | Number of articles with ≥1 citation | 62 (65%) | | Type of citing organisation | | | Government | 162 (53%) | | Intergovernmental organisation | 31 (10%) | | Clinical organisation* | 75 (24%) | | Think tank | 10 (3%) | | Other** | 30 (10%) | | Type of citing document | | | Clinical guidance | 162 (53%) | | Policy publication | 142 (46%) | | Working paper | 4 (1%) | | Country of citing organisation | | | United Kingdom | 101 (33%) | | Ireland | 6 (2%) | | Other Europe/EU | 56 (18%) | | North America | 62 (20%) | | Australasia | 32 (10%) | | Eurasia*** | 5 (2%) | | Asia | 5 (2%) | | Central and South America | 7 (2%) | | Africa | 3 (1%) | | International organisation | 31 (10%) | | Latency from article publication to citation in policy document (weeks) (median, range) | 220.8 (0.3–904.7) | | Total number of onward policy citations (including by same organisation) | 1721 | | Total number of onward policy citations by different policy organisations | 1077 | The median delay between publication of an article and citation in policy documents/guidelines was a little over 4 years (220.8 weeks, range 0.3–904.7 weeks), and the modal delay fell within the first half of the second year after publication (Figure 3). Figure 4 presents the pattern of article publication and citation in policy documents and guidelines over time since the first studies using the UKOSS platform were published in 2007. The UKOSS article that was most highly cited in policy and guideline documents reported surveillance of pregnant women hospitalised with SARS-CoV-23, with citations in 50 documents. Citations of this article were comparatively rapid: the median delay between article publication and citation in policy/guidelines was under a year (39.3 weeks, vs just under 5 years [257.7 weeks] for citations of all other articles combined) and over a third (17/50) of citations occurred within 6 months of the article being published (vs 2% [6/258] for all other articles). The most rapid citation, in an evidence summary published by the Government of New South Wales, Australia105, came 2 days after the article was published. The context of citations varied. In many cases, the evidence was used to provide background on risk, burden and/or outcomes. Other uses of the evidence had potential for more direct impact, both in the UK and globally; examples are presented in Table 2. A WHO-authored “Roadmap for research on maternal and perinatal health in the context of epidemic threats” cited UKOSS as an example of a network that allowed researchers to “leverage existing protocols, human and financial resources, and infrastructure to rapidly generate epidemiological data” during the Covid-19 pandemic106. | Document type | Citation context | Quoted document text for which article is cited as supporting evidence | Reference | |---|---|---|---| | Equality impact assessment of Covid-19 lockdown policies in England | Evidence supporting recommendations around lockdowns, return to work, and work from home, with consideration of elevated risk for Black and minority ethnic pregnant women. | “Pregnant women are more at risk if they have underlying conditions or if they are in their third trimester of pregnancy. We consider the health benefits of social distancing for this group of pregnant women counterbalance the negative impacts" “Pregnant members of staff, being a clinically vulnerable group, may need adjustments, or may feel unable to return to work at the same time as their colleagues. This may be particularly pertinent for pregnant BAME members of staff as a recent study found that 56% of pregnant women admitted to hospital with coronavirus from 1 March to 14 April were from a BAME background. Clinically vulnerable individuals, which includes those who are pregnant, have been advised to take extra care in observing social distancing and should work from home” | 107 | | Equity and equality guidance for local maternity systems issued by NHS England | Evidence underpinning the Covid-19 recommended “four actions” | “Rationale and implementation: COVID-19 four actions: 56% of the pregnant women admitted to hospital with COVID-19 were from ethnic minority groups, even though they only make up a quarter of those giving birth in England and Wales. Maternity units in England were asked to take four actions to minimise the additional risk of COVID-19 to pregnant women and their babies from ethnic minorities: 1. Increase support for at-risk pregnant women – for example, make sure clinicians have a lower threshold to review, admit and consider multidisciplinary escalation in women from ethnic minority groups. 2. Reach out and reassure pregnant BAME women with tailored communications. 3. Ensure hospitals discuss vitamins, supplements and nutrition in pregnancy with all women. Women low in vitamin D may be more vulnerable to coronavirus so women with darker skin or those who always cover their skin when outside may be at particular risk of vitamin D insufficiency and should consider taking a daily supplement of vitamin D all year. Folic acid can help prevent certain birth defects, including spina bifida; it’s recommended that women take a 400 micrograms folic acid tablet every day before pregnancy and until 12 weeks of pregnancy. 4. Ensure all providers record on maternity information systems the ethnicity of every woman, as well as other risk factors, such as living in a deprived area (postcode), co-morbidities, BMI and aged 35 years or over, to identify those most at risk of poor outcomes” | 108 | | Written evidence to the UK government from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Britain’s independent equality and human rights regulator | Recommendations around hygiene, social distancing, and early release for pregnant women in prison, with emphasis on the elevated risk for Black and minority ethnic women | “Pregnant women in prison may be at heightened risk during the pandemic. There are particular concerns for pregnant women from Black and other ethnic minority groups, who have been admitted to hospital with COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates… To protect the rights and health of women in prison and their children we recommend that the UK Government:… - Expedites appropriate releases from women’s prisons, prioritising those at heightened risk of harm. This includes those who are pregnant or have new babies, ethnic minority women and those with underlying health conditions… - Takes urgent steps to ensure social distancing and good hygiene can be maintained to protect the right to health of pregnant women and new mothers, where it is not possible to release these women from prison.” | 109 | | National and regional vaccination guidelines in Malaysia and Spain (Basque Autonomous Community) | Rationale for vaccinating pregnant women | “Severe illness appears to be more common in the second and third trimester. In the UKOSS study, most women were hospitalized in their third trimester or peripartum (n = 342, 81%). The median gestational age at hospital admission was 34+0 weeks of gestation (interquartile range [IQR] 29–38 weeks)…Thus, vaccinating pregnant mothers with identifiable risk factors…reduces maternal morbidity and mortality” [Translated via translate.google.co.uk] “Pregnant women should be encouraged to be fully vaccinated during the period of highest risk of complications from COVID-19 infection (late 2nd and 3rd trimesters of pregnancy).” | 110 111 | | Review of perinatal safety produced by NHS England | Rationale for priorities. The document sets out responsibilities for “board-level perinatal safety champions” to address its recommendations. | “The 2020 MBRRACE-UK and UKOSS reports showed that 55% of pregnant women admitted to hospital with COVID-19 were from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic (BAME) background. Improving care for these women must be an absolute priority for maternity services across England.” | 112 | | Evidence update from the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention | Support for social distancing in later pregnancy | “Findings indicate that most pregnant women admitted to hospital with SARS-CoV-2 infection were in the late second or third trimester, supporting guidance for continued social distancing measures in later pregnancy.” | 113 | | Evidence submitted to Japan’s Health and Science Council, Vaccination Basic Policy Subcommittee | Support for recommendation to prioritise pregnant women for vaccination | [Translated via translate.google.co.uk] “Top priority criteria: Pregnant women 12 weeks or over... UK Pregnancy Surveillance has reported a higher rate of hospitalization requiring respiratory support among pregnant women (41/427 cases: 9.6%).” | 114 | | Detailed report to an NHS Foundation Trust on “Maternity Governance – Quality & Safety”, focusing on summarising the UKOSS report and relating it to local context | The UKOSS report is the focus of the document. The document includes a section on “Guidelines and Policies” in response to the UKOSS findings of ethnic disparities. | “A number of specific policies, SOPs and guidelines were put in place to manage the Covid risk whilst continuing to manage a safe service. This guidance included managing the service in a different way. The changes to services are outlined in Appendix 1…A letter explaining the increased risk of women in the BAME group has been given to relevant women. More work is being carried out on specific additional information and advice required for women from the BAME background and for women with other co-morbidities associated with higher risk of complications of Covid. This work is linked to the new and existing recommendations from MBRRACE which can be found in a separate document.” | 115 | Another document that cited the study was the minutes of an NHS Trust Board of Directors’ meeting along with appended reports and action plans116. This revealed that “the UKOSS report was not discussed by the Trust's Maternity and Neonatal Safety Champion Group until 18th December 2020, thus missing the 30th November deadline [specified in the safety action plan]”. The report reflected on the need for improved systems and processes to ensure evidence was actioned promptly when received, and stated that “the report was subsequently discussed in more detail and its findings have been actively incorporated into the groups' plans and recommendations to Board and to the Women and Children's Division.” The findings of the study were covered by UK- and US-based lay media, including in articles in the Guardian117, the Independent118, BBC News119, the New York Times120, and Propublica121. The study was also cited in three articles in The Conversation (two in English122,123 and one in Spanish124), and in the Indonesian-125, Vietnamese-126 and Ukrainian-language127 versions of the Wikipedia page “Covid-19 in pregnancy”. The second most highly-cited UKOSS article reported surveillance of pulmonary embolism11 and received 16 citations in policy and guideline documents. With the exception of one citation in a WHO-authored document that was classified as a policy document128, all of these citations were in clinical guidelines, from organisations including the UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists129–132, Ireland’s Health Service Executive133, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network132, the UK’s National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)134, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists135,136, the European Resuscitation Council137 and the European Society of Cardiology138. This study was among the first to be undertaken through the UKOSS platform and the article was published in February 2008. It was first cited in October 2010, in resuscitation guidelines for cardiac arrest in special circumstances from the European Resuscitation Council137. The median time from publication to citation of this article was a little over 10 years (539.1 weeks). Most recently, it was cited in June 2025, over 17 years after publication, in the WHO recommendations on the management of sickle cell disease during pregnancy, childbirth and the interpregnancy period128. There, it was used to provide evidence for obesity as a risk factor for pulmonary embolism. Exploring the context of citations revealed that the study was primarily used to provide evidence about incidence, case fatality and risk factors. Several guidelines also used the study to support recommendations on management, in the form of evidence on the safety and dosing regimens, and need for monitoring, of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). For example, the American College of Chest Physicians’ Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines on VTE, Thrombophilia, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Pregnancy Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis cite the article in support of the following guidance: “Observational studies confirm the safety and efficacy of LMWH in this patient population when used for treatment of VTE…some…recommend a bid LMWH dosing schedule. However, many clinicians use a once-daily regimen to simplify administration and enhance compliance. Observational studies have not demonstrated any increase in the risk of recurrence with the once-daily regimen over the bid regimen”139, and the European Society of Cardiology’s guidelines on the management of cardiovascular diseases during pregnancy cite the article when stating that “Given the need for dose increase as pregnancy progresses to maintain a certain therapeutic anti-Xa level, it seems reasonable to determine anti-Xa levels also during pregnancy in patients with VTE [venous thromboembolism]. This appears particularly justified in view of the fact that pulmonary embolism occurred in women receiving preventive doses of LMWH.”138 Altmetric did not detect any coverage of the article in the mainstream media. The third most highly-cited UKOSS article reported a case-control study of uterine rupture published in 201214. Around half of the citations (6/13) of this article were in documents classified as clinical guidelines, published by organisations including the UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists140, and several NHS Trusts141,142. The other half (7/13) were in materials classified as policy documents, which included recommendations from the national governments of Georgia143 and the Republic of Slovakia144, and state governments in Australia145,146. The article was first cited around 3 months (14.1 weeks) after publication, in a “Children, families and maternity e-bulletin” issued by the UK’s Department of Health, which highlighted risk factors that should be considered when discussing and managing labour with women who have previously given birth by caesarean section147. All subsequent citations occurred at least 3 years after the article was published and the most recent appeared in April 2025, thirteen years after the article was published, in an updated guideline on management of uterine rupture. The article was primarily cited as evidence of risk factors for uterine rupture, with four articles also including incidence data140–142,148. The study was referenced in an article published by Australian academics in The Conversation in January 2020149. Citations of the study in Australian policy documents came both before and after this article was published. The joint fourth most highly cited UKOSS article reported surveillance of stillbirth, perinatal mortality, and neonatal mortality in women infected with H1N1 influenza (swine flu) during the second wave of the 2009 pandemic12. This study received 12 citations in a range of documents including clinical and public health guidance and national public health plans, mainly from organisations based in the UK, the rest of Europe, and North America. The most rapid citation detected after publication came just over a year after article publication, in the NHS Scotland’s seasonal influenza vaccination programme for 2012–13150. The median time from publication to citation was just over 4 years (221.3 weeks) and the most recent citation came in April 2021, when the study was used by the World Health Organization’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety in a review of the evidence around the safety of vaccinations during pregnancy151. There, the study was used as evidence of adverse perinatal outcomes associated with maternal pandemic influenza. Exploring the context of the twelve citations revealed that the study was in most cases cited as evidence for adverse outcomes of influenza in pregnancy and thus as a rationale for vaccinating pregnant women. For example, the Government of Canada’s statement on seasonal influenza vaccine for 2014–2015 cited the study in support of the statement, “NACI recommends the inclusion of all pregnant women, at any stage of pregnancy, among high priority recipients of influenza vaccine due to...evidence of adverse neonatal outcomes associated with respiratory hospitalization during pregnancy or influenza during pregnancy”152. Altmetric did not detect any coverage of the article in the mainstream media. With the joint-fourth highest number of citations, the 2014 article reporting UKOSS surveillance of sepsis was also cited 12 times13. A third of the citations were in documents classified as clinical guidance, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ guideline on critical care in pregnancy153, and a report of the French national confidential enquiry into maternal deaths154. Two thirds of the citations were in policy documents, which included the UK Chief Medical Officer’s 2014 annual report on women’s health155; five World Health Organisation recommendation documents156–160; a further WHO report titled “Addressing gender inequalities in national action plans on antimicrobial resistance: guidance to complement the people-centred approach”161; and a Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists document, “Care of the critically ill woman in childbirth; enhanced maternal care”162. The median delay from article publication to citation was just under 7 years (362.4 weeks), with the earliest citation occurring a little over a year after publication, in the WHO recommendations for prevention and treatment of maternal peripartum infections157. The most recent citation came in 2024 in Ireland’s Health Protection Surveillance Centre’s “Guidelines for the Public Health Management of Contacts of Invasive Group A Streptococcus (iGAS) infection in Ireland”163. The citations appeared most frequently in the context of identifying risk factors for sepsis. Other contexts included citation as evidence of the need to treat sepsis as an emergency154,163; and the potential for physical and psychological problems during rehabilitation: “many critical care units assess the need for and provide support for the physical, psychological and cognitive problems that may occur during recovery and rehabilitation. The obstetric population is not immune from such problems. The psychological effects or physical complaints, such as muscle wasting, may make attending to the neonate extremely challenging.”162 The article was promoted in a press release published on EurekAlert!164 Altmetric did not detect any mentions in major mainstream lay media outlets. This study identified extensive, varied, and geographically widespread use of evidence generated through the UKOSS platform in policy and clinical guidelines. It also revealed a typical delay of several years or more between an article being published and it being cited in these types of documents. We found that 65% of articles reporting primary research that used the UKOSS platform for data collection had been cited in at least one policy document or clinical guideline at the time of analysis. This citation frequency is high compared with that of published health science research in general: a 2021 analysis of Scopus-indexed healthcare research articles using Overton estimated that approximately 13% of articles published in 2008 had been cited at least once in policy documents, with a gradual decrease to approximately 6% of articles published in 2016 that probably resulted from the delay between publication and citation165. Because of the relatively small number of UKOSS articles published each year, we did not analyse citation frequency by article publication year, meaning our analysis is not directly comparable with that study. However, the articles we included were published between 2007 and 2024, making the “oldest” a few years older than those in the Scopus analysis and the “youngest” considerably more recent. We would expect citations to the most recently published UKOSS articles to continue to accrue, so comparison of the two studies would, if anything, underestimate the relative uptake of UKOSS studies in policy and guidelines. Our analysis also included citations identified by only Altmetric as well as those detected by Overton, but these accounted for under a third of the citations detected and only six of the ninety-six articles received citations that were detected by Altmetric while having none detected by Overton. Thus, the data suggest comparatively high uptake of UKOSS evidence in policy and clinical guidance. We suggest that the high uptake of UKOSS evidence reflects the fact that the UKOSS platform was designed to provide data on uncommon conditions, for which evidence to underpin policy and clinical decision-making is scarce and difficult to collect because of the small number of women affected1,2. Thus, what little robust evidence is available tends to be highly cited. This probably also explains why the earliest UKOSS articles are still occasionally being cited over 17 years after their initial publication: there is a dearth of more recent robust evidence. The high uptake rate, particularly in clinical guidelines, may also result from the choice of conditions for study being driven by clinicians and clinical researchers1, meaning the findings inform areas with pressing need for evidence to underpin clinical decisions. Although UKOSS provides data on the UK pregnant population, over two thirds of citations came from organisations outside the UK. Again, this may reflect limited data available for the national population in many countries, as well as the use of UK data for comparison with that of the country in question where available. Since UKOSS was established in 2005, a number of other countries have used the same methodology to establish national and regional surveillance systems and now form INOSS, the International Network of Obstetric Surveillance Systems, with member countries including Belgium, a Nordic collaboration (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden), France, Italy, Namibia, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the UK (https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/inoss/inoss-members/oss-members). As studies are conducted through these systems, the international evidence base on uncommon disorders in pregnancy will expand. The median lag between article publication and citation was just over four years, or just under five years if the one highly and rapidly cited article reporting Covid-19 surveillance was excluded. This delay could result from a mismatch between research topics and policy priorities, or suboptimal stakeholder communication. Timelines for clinical guideline development and updating may also be a factor; for example, NICE guidelines are updated on a five-year cycle (although updates can be brought forward if sufficient new evidence warrants this)166. The long median delay is also partly attributable to the fact that older studies continued to be sporadically cited long after publication; the modal delay is shorter, at around 2 years. Nonetheless, speeding up the initial uptake of evidence into policy and clinical guidelines would allow pregnant women and their babies to benefit from evidence-based practice sooner; thus, knowledge mobilisation should be prioritised for future studies. The Covid-19 pandemic was a highly atypical situation, but the speed with which evidence was integrated into policy and guidelines at this time suggests that it is possible to speed up the pipeline from research to policy and practice, given sufficient resources, aligned priorities, good communication between stakeholders, and a collective sense of urgency. The exploratory nature of this study and relatively small number of articles and citations involved mean we cannot draw firm conclusions about study or article characteristics that led to high numbers of citations. However, one observation worth noting is that with the exception of the study reporting Covid-19 surveillance, all of the highly cited articles profiled in our case studies reported investigations that included a comparison group: they either had a case-control design or included an external comparison group for the cohort. Among the included articles overall, this was the case for under half of the studies reported (42/96); other studies were purely descriptive or included comparisons only between subgroups within the cohort of women with the condition of interest. It is likely that the nature and strength of the evidence provided by a study with a comparison group made the highly-cited reports more useful to policymakers and guideline developers; it would be worth consulting with end-users of UKOSS evidence to ensure studies are designed with their evidence needs in mind. One factor not captured by the methodology used in this study is potential effects on citation rates of dissemination modes other than published journal articles. Early discussions of evidence with policymakers and clinicians sometimes occurs before article publication. This is particularly relevant to two of the highly cited articles in our case studies – surveillance of 2009/H1N1 influenza and SARS-CoV-2. The pandemic nature of these two conditions and the coordinated response by researchers, policymakers and medical staff meant that unpublished findings were communicated to stakeholders as soon as available. The evidence quickly fed into policy and clinical guidelines, considerably before the respective articles were published. Thus, it is possible that in some cases, high rates of citation of the eventual journal articles in policy documents result from earlier successful dissemination through other routes, meaning that the subsequent citations detected in policy documents represent a record rather than a driver of impact. We used Altmetric to evaluate mentions of highly-cited UKOSS papers in the lay media to look for any patterns of coverage that might have facilitated their extensive uptake into policy and guidelines. The article reporting surveillance of Covid-19 in pregnancy received the most media coverage; however, given the unusually intense focus from media, policymakers, and clinical guidance developers on research relating to Covid-19 at the height of the pandemic, it is difficult to draw any generalisable conclusions around possible impact of dissemination in the lay media on uptake into policy. Altmetric did not detect any mentions in major news outlets of any of the other highly cited articles that we included in our case studies. However, this may be because of limitations in detection rather than a lack of coverage: a Google search for “swine flu perinatal maternal pregnancy 2009 Marian Knight news coverage” returned articles published by BBC News166 and Sky News167 that could be determined by the details included to be referring to the article on H1N1 flu surveillance12. Similarly, a Google search for “sepsis perinatal maternal pregnancy 2014 Marian Knight news coverage” returned a BBC News article168 that included a link to the published article. Detection by Altmetric may be problematic when a link to the study is not included in the news article, and the age of the study may also be a factor. This study had several limitations. Screening of citations by a single reviewer created potential for subjectivity in inclusion and exclusion decisions. Additionally, owing to the limited resources available for the study, we limited the exploration of citation context to descriptive case studies rather than a comprehensive analysis of all citations. The coverage of policy sources by Overton and Altmetric is extensive but not fully comprehensive; therefore, some citations were likely missed. This would include documents not published online and those posted behind a paywall. Documents in languages other than English, although not excluded by the databases, may have less comprehensive coverage, and the coverage of sources may vary between countries. Coverage of older documents is likely to be less comprehensive: Overton states that “coverage is generally good from 2015 onwards and sparse before 2009”166. At the other extreme of the citation timeframe, the sharp drop-off in annual citation counts after 2021 (Figure 4a) suggests a possible indexing delay. Additionally, the citation tracking approach to evaluating evidence use cannot detect instances where evidence was used in policy development but not cited. All of these limitations could have resulted in underascertainment of citations. The categorisation of citing organisations and type of document used the categories assigned by Overton and Altmetric, and thus is dependent on the accuracy of the information provided by the databases. Similarly, the accuracy of data such as the date of citation was dependent on Overton and Altmetric providing accurate data. Evidence from studies conducted via the UKOSS platform has been used extensively over the platform’s 20-year history in policy documents and clinical guidance in the UK and globally. Consideration should be given to how to speed up knowledge translation to allow pregnant women and their babies to benefit from evidence-based policies and practice with minimum delays. No ethics approval or consent was required for this retrospective analysis of publicly available documents. The data for this article includes bibliographic references (i.e., included articles), which are included in the References section. Because Overton and Altmetric are commercial databases, the underlying policy citation data cannot be shared openly due to copyright licensing restrictions. The Methods section contains detailed information to allow replication of the study using the bibliographic information of the included articles. Alternatively, requests to access the data can be made by contacting the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit data access committee via [email protected] and will be considered in the context of the conditions of the database licences. The estimated response time for requests is 4 weeks. For more information about procedures and conditions for data access, please refer to the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Data Sharing Policy available at https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/assets/downloads/npeu/policies/Data_Sharing_Policy.pdf. All statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel, a commercial software. All analyses in this study can be replicated using freely available statistical software such as LibreOffice Calc. Faculty Opinions recommendedReferences - 1. Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Tuffnell D, et al.: The UK Obstetric Surveillance System for rare disorders of pregnancy. BJOG. 2005; 112(3): 263–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 2. Knight M: The UK Obstetric Surveillance System. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med. 2008; 18(7): 199–200. Publisher Full Text - 3. Knight M, Bunch K, Vousden N, et al.: Characteristics and outcomes of pregnant women admitted to hospital with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in UK: national population based cohort study. BMJ. 2020; 369: m2107. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 4. NHS England: News: NHS boosts support for pregnant black and ethnic minority women. 2020; [Accessed 18 August 2025]. Reference Source - 5. Yates L, Pierce M, Stephens S, et al.: Influenza A/H1N1v in pregnancy: an investigation of the characteristics and management of affected women and the relationship to pregnancy outcomes for mother and infant. Health Technol Assess. 2010; 14(34): 109–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 6. University of Oxford: REF2014 impact case study UOA02-04: underpinning evidence-based policy for management of influenza in pregnant women. 2014; [accessed 23 April 2025]. Reference Source - 7. Overton. Open Policy Ltd, 2024. Reference Source - 8. Altmetric explorer. Digital Science & Research Solutions Ltd, 2024. Reference Source - 9. Szomszor M, Adie E: Overton: a bibliometric database of policy document citations. Quant Sci Stud. 2022; 3(3): 624–50. Publisher Full Text - 10. Tunn R, Alderdice F, Knight M: Evaluating Overton and Altmetric as tools for tracking healthcare research use and impact on policy and practice: a descriptive study [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. NIHR Open Res. 2025; 5: 59. Publisher Full Text - 11. Knight M, UKOSS: Antenatal pulmonary embolism: risk factors, management and outcomes. BJOG. 2008; 115(4): 453–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 12. Pierce M, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, et al.: Perinatal outcomes after maternal 2009/H1N1 infection: national cohort study. BMJ. 2011; 342: d3214. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 13. Acosta CD, Kurinczuk JJ, Lucas DN, et al.: Severe maternal sepsis in the UK, 2011-2012: a national case-control study. PLoS Med. 2014; 11(7): e1001672. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 14. Fitzpatrick KE, Kurinczuk JJ, Alfirevic Z, et al.: Uterine rupture by intended mode of delivery in the UK: a national case-control study. PLoS Med. 2012; 9(3): e1001184. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 15. Knight M, Berg C, Brocklehurst P, et al.: Amniotic fluid embolism incidence, risk factors and outcomes: a review and recommendations. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012; 12: 7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 16. McCall SJ, Bonnet MP, Äyräs O, et al.: Anaphylaxis in pregnancy: a population-based multinational European study. Anaesthesia. 2020; 75(11): 1469–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 17. Overton TG, Pierce MR, Gao H, et al.: Antenatal management and outcomes of gastroschisis in the UK. Prenat Diagn. 2012; 32(13): 1256–62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 18. Jackson R, Cornish R, Daskalopoulou Z, et al.: Association of antenatal or neonatal SARS-COV-2 exposure with developmental and respiratory outcomes, and healthcare usage in early childhood: a national prospective cohort study. EClinicalMedicine. 2024; 72: 102628. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 19. Geenes V, Chappell LC, Seed PT, et al.: Association of severe intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy with adverse pregnancy outcomes: a prospective population-based case-control study. Hepatology. 2014; 59(4): 1482–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 20. McCall SJ, Li Z, Kurinczuk JJ, et al.: Binational cohort study comparing the management and outcomes of pregnant women with a BMI 50–59.9 kg/m2 and those with a BMI ≥60 kg/m2. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(8): e021055. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 21. Beckett VA, Knight M, Sharpe P: The CAPS study: incidence, management and outcomes of cardiac arrest in pregnancy in the UK: a prospective, descriptive study. BJOG. 2017; 124(9): 1374–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 22. Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, et al.: Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111(1): 97–105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 23. Knight M, Pierce M, Seppelt I, et al.: Critical illness with AH1N1v influenza in pregnancy: a comparison of two population-based cohorts. BJOG. 2011; 118(2): 232–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 24. Jefferys A, Lenguerrand E, Cornthwaite K, et al.: Deflation versus maintained inflation of gastric band in pregnancy: a national cohort study. Obstet Med. 2017; 10(2): 67–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 25. Goodacre S, Horspool K, Nelson-Piercy C, et al.: The DiPEP study: an observational study of the diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment, D-dimer and chest x-ray for suspected pulmonary embolism in pregnancy and postpartum. BJOG. 2019; 126(3): 383–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 26. Knight M, UKOSS: Eclampsia in the United Kingdom 2005. BJOG. 2007; 114(9): 1072–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 27. Schaap TP, Knight M, Zwart JJ, et al.: Eclampsia, a comparison within the International Network of Obstetric Survey Systems. BJOG. 2014; 121(12): 1521–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 28. Green L, Knight M, Seeney FM, et al.: The epidemiology and outcomes of women with postpartum haemorrhage requiring massive transfusion with eight or more units of red cells: a national cross-sectional study. BJOG. 2016; 123(13): 2164–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 29. Nair M, Kurinczuk JJ, Knight M: Ethnic variations in severe maternal morbidity in the UK– a case control study. PLoS One. 2014; 9(4): e95086. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 30. Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, et al.: Extreme obesity in pregnancy in the United Kingdom. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115(5): 989–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 31. Nair M, Kurinczuk J, Brocklehurst P, et al.: Factors associated with maternal death from direct pregnancy complications: a UK national case– control study. BJOG. 2015; 122(5): 653–62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 32. McCall S, Nair M, Knight M: Factors associated with maternal mortality at advanced maternal age: a population-based case– control study. BJOG. 2017; 124(8): 1225–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 33. Quinn AC, Milne D, Columb M, et al.: Failed tracheal intubation in obstetric anaesthesia: 2 yr national case– control study in the UK. Br J Anaesth. 2012; 110(1): 74–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 34. WHO Global Maternal Sepsis Study (GLOSS) Research Group: Frequency and management of maternal infection in health facilities in 52 countries (GLOSS): a 1-week inception cohort study. Lancet Glob Health. 2020; 8(5): e661–e71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 35. Green L, Knight M, Seeney F, et al.: The haematological features and transfusion management of women who required massive transfusion for major obstetric haemorrhage in the UK:a population based study. Br J Haematol. 2016; 172(4): 616–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 36. Quartermaine G, Lambert K, Rees K, et al.: Hormone-secreting adrenal tumours cause severe hypertension and high rates of poor pregnancy outcome; a UK Obstetric Surveillance System study with case control comparisons. BJOG. 2018; 125(6): 719–27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 37. Vousden N, Bunch K, Kenyon S, et al.: Impact of maternal risk factors on ethnic disparities in maternal mortality: a national population-based cohort study. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024; 40: 100893. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 38. Wyn Jones N, Mitchell EJ, Wakefield N, et al.: Impacted fetal head during second stage caesarean birth: a prospective observational study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022; 272: 77–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 39. Knight M, Pierce M, Allen D, et al.: The incidence and outcomes of fetomaternal alloimmune thrombocytopenia: a UK national study using three data sources. Br J Haematol. 2011; 152(4): 460–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 40. Attilakos G, David AL, Tunn R, et al.: Incidence and outcomes of vasa praevia in the United Kingdom [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. NIHR Open Res. 2024; 4: 49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 41. Knight M, Tuffnell D, Brocklehurst P, et al.: Incidence and risk factors for amniotic-fluid embolism. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115(5): 910–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 42. Fitzpatrick KE, Sellers S, Spark P, et al.: Incidence and risk factors for placenta accreta/increta/percreta in the UK: a national case-control study. PLoS One. 2012; 7(12): e52893. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 43. Vousden N, Bunch K, Morris E, et al.: The incidence, characteristics and outcomes of pregnant women hospitalized with symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK from march to september 2020: a national cohort study using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS). PLoS One. 2021; 16(5): e0251123. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 44. McCall SJ, Bunch KJ, Brocklehurst P, et al.: The incidence, characteristics, management and outcomes of anaphylaxis in pregnancy: a population-based descriptive study. BJOG. 2018; 125(8): 965–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 45. Pillai A, Tata LJ, Lucas N, et al.: The incidence, characteristics, management and outcomes of peripartum hyponatraemia in the United Kingdom: a prospective study using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS). BJOG. 2025; 132(10): 1502–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 46. Morris RK, Mackie F, Garces AT, et al.: The incidence, maternal, fetal and neonatal consequences of single intrauterine fetal death in monochorionic twins: a prospective observational UKOSS study. PLoS One. 2020; 15(9): e0239477. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 47. Tunn R, Ramakrishnan R, Engjom HM, et al.: Incidence, outcomes and management of spontaneous haemoperitoneum in pregnancy: a UK population-based study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res. 2025; 5: 40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 48. Vousden N, Bunch K, Knight M, et al.: Incidence, risk factors and impact of seasonal influenza in pregnancy: a national cohort study. PLoS One. 2021; 16(1): e0244986. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 49. Fitzpatrick KE, Tuffnell D, Kurinczuk JJ, et al.: Incidence, risk factors, management and outcomes of amniotic-fluid embolism: a population-based cohort and nested case–control study. BJOG. 2016; 123(1): 100–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 50. Scott CA, Bewley S, Rudd A, et al.: Incidence, risk factors, management, and outcomes of stroke in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120(2 Part 1): 318–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 51. Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, et al.: Inequalities in maternal health: national cohort study of ethnic variation in severe maternal morbidities. BMJ. 2009; 338: b542. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 52. Vandenberghe G, Bloemenkamp K, Berlage S, et al.: The International Network of Obstetric Survey Systems study of uterine rupture: a descriptive multi-country population-based study. BJOG. 2019; 126(3): 370–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 53. Lambert K, Rees K, Seed PT, et al.: Macroprolactinomas and nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas and pregnancy outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 129(1): 185–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 54. Vousden N, Ramakrishnan R, Bunch K, et al.: Management and implications of severe COVID-19 in pregnancy in the UK: data from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System national cohort. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022; 101(4): 461–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 55. Fitzpatrick K, Sellers S, Spark P, et al.: The management and outcomes of placenta accreta, increta, and percreta in the UK: a population-based descriptive study. BJOG. 2014; 121(1): 62–70; discussion 70-1.. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 56. Diguisto C, Baker E, Stanworth S, et al.: Management and outcomes of women with low fibrinogen concentration during pregnancy or immediately postpartum: a UK national population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2024; 103(7): 1339–47. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 57. Kallianidis AF, Maraschini A, Danis J, et al.: Management of major obstetric hemorrhage prior to peripartum hysterectomy and outcomes across nine European countries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021; 100(7): 1345–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 58. Kayem G, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, et al.: Maternal and obstetric factors associated with delayed postpartum eclampsia: a national study population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011; 90(9): 1017–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 59. McCall SJ, Li Z, Kurinczuk JJ, et al.: Maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with BMI >50: an international collaborative study. PLoS One. 2019; 14(2): e0211278. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 60. Richardson JL, Stephens S, Chappell LC, et al.: Monitoring the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy in the UK: a national study using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS), UK Teratology Information Service (UKTIS) and Vaccination in Pregnancy (VIP) safety monitoring systems. Obstet Med. 2023; 16(1): 40–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 61. Cook JR, Jarvis S, Knight M, et al.: Multiple repeat caesarean section in the UK: incidence and consequences to mother and child. A national, prospective, cohort study. BJOG. 2013; 120(1): 85–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 62. Bush N, Nelson-Piercy C, Spark P, et al.: Myocardial infarction in pregnancy and postpartum in the UK. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2013; 20(1): 12–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 63. Quinn AC, Kinsella SM, Gorton HJ, et al.: Neonatal outcomes after failed tracheal intubation during obstetric general anaesthesia for caesarean section: secondary analysis of a UKOSS case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017; 217: 181–2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 64. Tunn R, Ramakrishnan R, Hartopp R, et al.: Neurological complications following obstetric neuraxial anaesthesia: a four-year United Kingdom population-based study of epidural haematoma and epidural abscess (2014–2017). Int J Obstet Anesth. 2025; 63: 104700. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 65. Homer CSE, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, et al.: A novel use of a classification system to audit severe maternal morbidity. Midwifery. 2010; 26(5): 532–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 66. Cornthwaite K, Jefferys A, Lenguerrand E, et al.: One size does not fit all. Management of the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band in pregnancy: a national prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2015; 385 Suppl 1: S32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 67. Ashcroft A, Chapman SJ, Mackillop L: The outcome of pregnancy in women with Cystic Fibrosis: a UK population-based descriptive study. BJOG. 2020; 127(13): 1696–703. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 68. Engjom HM, Ramakrishnan R, Vousden N, et al.: Perinatal outcomes after admission with COVID-19 in pregnancy: a UK national cohort study. Nat Commun. 2024; 15(1): 3234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 69. Knight M, : UKOSSPeripartum hysterectomy in the UK: management and outcomes of the associated haemorrhage. BJOG. 2007; 114(11): 1380–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 70. Homer CSE, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, et al.: Planned vaginal delivery or planned caesarean delivery in women with extreme obesity. BJOG. 2011; 118(4): 480–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 71. Fitzpatrick KE, Tuffnell D, Kurinczuk JJ, et al.: Pregnancy at very advanced maternal age: a UK population-based cohort study. BJOG. 2017; 124(7): 1097–106. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 72. Bramham K, Nelson-Piercy C, Gao H, et al.: Pregnancy in renal transplant recipients: a UK national cohort study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013; 8(2): 290–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 73. Oteng-Ntim E, Ayensah B, Knight M, et al.: Pregnancy outcome in patients with sickle cell disease in the UK – a national cohort study comparing sickle cell anaemia (HbSS) with HbSC disease. Br J Haematol. 2015; 169(1): 129–37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 74. Cornthwaite K, Prajapati C, Lenguerrand E, et al.: Pregnancy outcomes following different types of bariatric surgery: a national cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021; 260: 10–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 75. Mohamed-Ahmed O, Nelson-Piercy C, Bramham K, et al.: Pregnancy outcomes in liver and cardiothoracic transplant recipients: a UK national cohort study. PLoS One. 2014; 9(2): e89151. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 76. Alimam S, Bewley S, Chappell LC, et al.: Pregnancy outcomes in myeloproliferative neoplasms: UK prospective cohort study. Br J Haematol. 2016; 175(1): 31–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 77. Nana M, Majewska A, Rahim M, et al.: Pregnancy outcomes in women with liver cirrhosis: a national prospective cohort study using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System. BJOG. 2025; 132(7): 935–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 78. Vause S, Clarke B, Tower CL, et al.: Pregnancy outcomes in women with mechanical prosthetic heart valves: a prospective descriptive population based study using the United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) data collection system. BJOG. 2017; 124(9): 1411–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 79. Goodfellow L, Care A, Curran C, et al.: Preterm prelabour rupture of membranes before 23 weeks' gestation: prospective observational study. BMJ Med. 2024; 3(1): e000729. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 80. Mohamed-Ahmed O, Nair M, Acosta C, et al.: Progression from severe sepsis in pregnancy to death: a UK population-based case-control analysis. BJOG. 2015; 122(11): 1506–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 81. Knight M, Nelson-Piercy C, Kurinczuk JJ, et al.: A prospective national study of acute fatty liver of pregnancy in the UK. Gut. 2008; 57(7): 951–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 82. Lucas N, Gooda A, Tunn R, et al.: Pulmonary aspiration during pregnancy or immediately postpartum in the UK: a population-based case-control study [version 1; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res. 2025; 5: 2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 83. Bhatia K, Columb M, Knight M, et al.: Re-exploration following caesarean birth: a prospective national case–control study using the United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) data collection system. Anaesthesia. 2024; 79(11): 1191–200. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 84. Nair M, Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ: Risk factors and newborn outcomes associated with maternal deaths in the UK from 2009 to 2013: a national case–control study. BJOG. 2016; 123(10): 1654–62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 85. Kayem G, Kurinczuk J, Lewis G, et al.: Risk factors for progression from severe maternal morbidity to death: a national cohort study. PLoS One. 2011; 6(12): e29077. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 86. Fitzpatrick KE, van den Akker T, Bloemenkamp KWM, et al.: Risk factors, management, and outcomes of amniotic fluid embolism: a multicountry, population-based cohort and nested case-control study. PLoS Med. 2019; 16(11): e1002962. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 87. Fitzpatrick KE, Hinshaw K, Kurinczuk JJ, et al.: Risk factors, management, and outcomes of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome and elevated liver enzymes, low platelets syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123(3): 618–627. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 88. Nair M, Soffer K, Noor N, et al.: Selected maternal morbidities in women with a prior caesarean delivery planning vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean section: a retrospective cohort analysis using data from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(6): e007434. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 89. Goodacre S, Horspool K, Shephard N, et al.: Selecting pregnant or postpartum women with suspected Pulmonary Embolism for diagnostic imaging: the DiPEP diagnostic study with decision-analysis modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2018; 22(47): 1–230. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 90. Engjom H, van den Akker T, Aabakke A, et al.: Severe COVID-19 in pregnancy is almost exclusively limited to unvaccinated women - time for policies to change. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2022; 13: 100313. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 91. Care A, Pavord S, Knight M, et al.: Severe primary autoimmune thrombocytopenia in pregnancy: a national cohort study. BJOG. 2018; 125(5): 604–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 92. Kalin A, Acosta C, Kurinczuk JJ, et al.: Severe sepsis in women with group B streptococcus in pregnancy: an exploratory UK national case– control study. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(10): e007976. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 93. Kemp B, Kelso A, Williams D, et al.: Severe, uncontrolled epilepsy in pregnancy: a population-based case-control study [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. NIHR Open Res. 2024; 4: 53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 94. Vousden N, Ramakrishnan R, Bunch K, et al.: Severity of maternal infection and perinatal outcomes during periods of SARS-CoV-2 wildtype, alpha, and delta variant dominance in the UK: prospective cohort study. BMJ Med. 2022; 1(1): e000053. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 95. Engjom HM, Ramakrishnan R, Vousden N, et al.: Severity of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and perinatal outcomes of women admitted to hospital during the omicron variant dominant period using UK Obstetric Surveillance System data: prospective, national cohort study. BMJ Med. 2022; 1(1): e000190. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 96. Kayem G, Kurinczuk JJ, Alfirevic Z, et al.: Specific second-line therapies for postpartum haemorrhage: a national cohort study. BJOG. 2011; 118(7): 856–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 97. Diguisto C, Strachan MWJ, Churchill D, et al.: A study of diabetic ketoacidosis in the pregnant population in the United Kingdom: investigating the incidence, aetiology, management and outcomes. Diabet Med. 2022; 39(4): e14743. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 98. Oeser C, Aarons E, Heath PT, et al.: Surveillance of congenital Zika syndrome in England and Wales: methods and results of laboratory, obstetric and paediatric surveillance. Epidemiol Infect. 2019; 147: e262. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 99. McCall SJ, Henriquez D, Edwards HM, et al.: A total blood volume or more transfused during pregnancy or after childbirth: individual patient data from six international population-based observational studies. PLoS One. 2021; 16(1): e0244933. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 100. Knight M, Callaghan WM, Berg C, et al.: Trends in postpartum hemorrhage in high resource countries: a review and recommendations from the International Postpartum Hemorrhage Collaborative Group. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009; 9: 55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 101. Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Nelson-Piercy C, et al.: Tuberculosis in pregnancy in the UK. BJOG. 2009; 116(4): 584–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 102. Hardy C, Brand A, Jones J, et al.: The UK Breast Cancer in Pregnancy (UKBCiP) Study. Incidence, diagnosis, management and short-term outcomes of breast cancer first diagnosed during pregnancy in the United Kingdom: a population-based descriptive study [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res. 2025; 4: 40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 103. Kayem G, Kurinczuk JJ, Alfirevic Z, et al.: Uterine compression sutures for the management of severe postpartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117(1): 14–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 104. Lindquist A, Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ: Variation in severe maternal morbidity according to socioeconomic position: a UK national case–control study. BMJ Open. 2013; 3(6): e002742. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 105. New South Wales Government COVID-19 Critical Intelligence Unit: Daily evidence digest. 2020; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 106. World Health Organization: Roadmap for research on maternal and perinatal health in the context of epidemic threats. 2024; [Accessed 16 October 2025]. Reference Source - 107. HM Government: Considerations relating to public sector equality duty: equality analysis of social distancing measures, including restrictions on movement and restrictions on gatherings, in response to severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in England. 2020; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 108. NHS: Equity and equality: guidance for local maternity systems. 2021; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 109. Equality and Human Rights Commission: Written evidence (COV0131). 2020; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 110. Government of Malaysia: Clinical guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination in Malaysia. 4th Edition. 2021; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 111. Consejo Interterritorial Sistema Nacional de Salud: Acuerdo de la Comisión de Salud Pública del CISNS sobre Vacunación frente a COVID-19 en Mujeres Embarazadas. 2021; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 112. NHS England: Transforming perinatal safety. 2020; [Accessed 13 December 2025]. Reference Source - 113. Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention: COVID-19 scientific and public health policy update – (16 June 2020). 2020; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 114. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Health and Science Council Vaccination Basic Policy Subcommittee: Opinions submitted by related societies. 2020; [Accessed 16 Oct 2025]. Reference Source - 115. West Suffolk NHS Trust. Maternity Governance – Quality & Safety: Report on Covid 19 effects on women in the local area – UKOSS. 2021; [Accessed 16 October 2025]. Reference Source - 116. The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust: Board of Directors' meeting in public agenda. July 8, 2021; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 117. Hill A: Age, sex, vaccine dose, chronic illness – insight into risk factors for severe Covid is growing. The Guardian, 2021; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 118. Mathers M: Coronavirus: half of pregnant women in UK hospitals with Covid-19 from Bame background, study finds. Independent, 2020; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 119. Roxby P: Coronavirus: risk higher for pregnant BAME women. BBC News, 2020; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 120. Caron C: Why we still don’t know enough about Covid-19 and pregnancy. The New York Times, 2020; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 121. Martin N: Agonizing lag in coronavirus research puts pregnant women and babies at risk. ProPublica, 2020; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 122. Rees A, Thornton C: COVID-19 and pregnancy: what we know about what happens to your immune system. The Conversation, 2020; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 123. Thornton C, Rees A: COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective for pregnant women and their babies – new study. The Conversation, 2021; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 124. Caparros-Gonzalez RA, Riquelme Gallego B: Los obstáculos para las embarazadas se multiplicaron durante la pandemia. 2022; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 125. Wikipedia: Covid-19 dan kehamilan. [Accessed 10 September 2025]. Reference Source - 126. Wikipedia: COVID-19 trong thai kỳ. [Accessed 10 September 2025]. Reference Source - 127. Wikipedia: Коронавірусна хвороба 2019 у вагітних. [Accessed 10 September 2025]. Reference Source - 128. World Health Organization: WHO recommendations on the management of sickle cell disease during pregnancy, childbirth and the interpregnancy period. World Health Organization, 2025; [Accessed 16 October 2025]. Reference Source - 129. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaelcologists: Reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy and the puerperium: green-top guideline no. 37a. 2015; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 130. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaelcologists: Thromboembolic disease in pregnancy and the puerperium: acute management. 2015; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 131. Chu J, Johnston T, Geoghegan J, et al.: Maternal collapse in pregnancy and the puerperium: green-top guideline no. 56. BJOG. 2020; 127(5): e14–e52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 132. Denison FC, Aedla NR, Keag O, et al.: Care of women with obesity in pregnancy: green-top guideline no. 72. BJOG. 2019; 126(3): e62–e106. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 133. Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, Health Service Executive Clinical Care Programme in Obstetrics and Gynaecology: Clinical practice guideline: venous thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy. 2013; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 134. Howard LSGE, Barden S, Condliffe R, et al.: British Thoracic Society Guideline for the initial outpatient management of pulmonary embolism (PE). Thorax. 2018; 73(Suppl 2): ii1–ii29. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 135. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics: ACOG practice bulletin no. 196: thromboembolism in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 132(1): e1–e17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 136. Practice bulletin no. 123: thromboembolism in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118(3): 718–729. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 137. Soar J, Perkins GD, Abbas G, et al.: European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 section 8. Cardiac arrest in special circumstances: electrolyte abnormalities, poisoning, drowning, accidental hypothermia, hyperthermia, asthma, anaphylaxis, cardiac surgery, trauma, pregnancy, electrocution. Resuscitation. 2010; 81(10): 1400–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 138. European Society of Gynecology (ESG), Association for European Paediatric Cardiology (AEPC), German Society for Gender Medicine (DGesGM): ESC guidelines on the management of cardiovascular diseases during pregnancy: the task force on the management of Cardiovascular Diseases during pregnancy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2011; 32(24): 3147–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 139. Bates SM, Greer IA, Middeldorp S, et al.: VTE, thrombophilia, antithrombotic therapy, and pregnancy: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012; 141(2 Suppl): e691S–e736S. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 140. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: Birth after previous caesarean birth: green-top guideline no. 45. 2015; [Accessed 01 October 2025]. Reference Source - 141. Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust: Birth options after previous caesarean section: patient decision aid. 2016; [Accessed 01 October 2025]. Reference Source - 142. University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust: Uterine rupture guideline for management. 2025; [Accessed 01 October 2025]. Reference Source - 143. Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Affairs: Vaginal delivery after cesarean section: state standard for clinical condition management (protocol). 2022; [Accessed 01 October 2025]. Reference Source - 144. Ministry of Health: Prevention, diagnosis and treatment of peripartum hemorrhage. 2021; [Accessed 01 October 2025]. Reference Source - 145. State of Queensland Department of Health: Guideline: vaginal birth after caeasarean (VBAC). 2020; [Accessed 01 October 2025]. Reference Source - 146. Department for Health and Wellbeing Government of South Australia: South Australian perinatal practice guideline: birth after caesarean section. 2022; [Accessed 01 October 2025]. Reference Source - 147. Department of Health: Children, families and maternity e-bulletin. 2012; [Accessed 01 October 2025]. Reference Source - 148. New South Wales Government: Maternity - supporting women in their next birth after caesarean section (NBAC). 2014; [Accessed 01 October 2025]. Reference Source - 149. Lindquist A, Tong S: Vaginal birth after caesarean increases the risk of serious perineal tear by 20%, our large-scale review shows. 2022; [Accessed 01 October 2025]. Reference Source - 150. The Scottish Government Directorate of Chief Medical Officer and Public Health: Seasonal influenza vaccination programme for 2012–13. 2012; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 151. World Health Organization Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety: Safety of immunization during pregnancy: a review of the evidence. 2014; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 152. Public Health Agency of Canada Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch. Advisory Committee Statement (ACS), National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI): Statement on seasonal influenza vaccine for 2014–2015. 2014; [Accessed 13 December 2024]. Reference Source - 153. ACOG practice bulletin no. 211: critical care in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 133(5): e303–e319. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 154. Santé Publique France: Les morts maternelles en France: mieux comprendre pour mieux prévenir. 6e rapport de l'Enquête Nationale Confidentielle sur les Morts Maternelles (ENCMM) 2013–2015. 2021; [Accessed 01 October 2025]. Reference Source - 155. Department of Health: Chief Medical Officer annual report 2014: women’s health. 2015; [Accessed 01 October 2025]. Reference Source - 156. World Health Organization: WHO recommendation on routine antibiotic prophylaxis for women undergoing operative vaginal birth. 2021; [Accessed 15 October 2025]. Reference Source - 157. World Health Organization: WHO recommendations for prevention and treatment of maternal peripartum infections. 2015; [Accessed 15 October 2025]. Reference Source - 158. World Health Organization: WHO recommendation on vaginal preparation with antiseptic agents for women undergoing caesarean section. [Accessed 15 October 2025]; 2021. Reference Source - 159. World Health Organization: WHO recommendation on prophylactic antibiotics for women undergoing caesarean section. 2021; [Accessed 15 October 2025]. Reference Source - 160. World Health Organization: WHO recommendations on choice of antiseptic agent and method of application for preoperative skin preparation for caesarean section. 2021; [Accessed 15 October 2025]. Reference Source - 161. World Health Organization: Addressing gender inequalities in national action plans on antimicrobial resistance: guidance to complement the people-centred approach. 2024; [Accessed 15 October 2025]. Reference Source - 162. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: Care of the critically ill woman in childbirth; enhanced maternal care. 2018; [Accessed 01 October 2025]. Reference Source - 163. HSE Public Health: National Health Protection Office: Guidelines for the public health management of contacts of Invasive Group A Streptococcus (iGAS) infection in Ireland. 2024; [Accessed 15 October 2025]. Reference Source - 164. EurekAlert!: Updated: In the UK, signs of severe maternal sepsis should be regarded as an obstetric emergency. 2014; [Accessed 15 October 2025]. Reference Source - 165. Pinheiro H, Vignola-Gagné E, Campbell D: A large-scale validation of the relationship between cross-disciplinary research and its uptake in policy-related documents, using the novel Overton altmetrics database. Quant Sci Stud. 2021; 2(2): 616–642. Publisher Full Text - 166. Garbi M: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines development principles and processes. Heart. 2021; 107(12): 949–953. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 167. Sky News: Swine Flu link to stillbirth. 2011; [Accessed 12 September 2025]. Reference Source - 168. Briggs H: BBC News: blood infection warning for new mums. 2014. Reference Source Author details Author details 1 National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, OX3 7LF, UK Ruth Tunn Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Marian Knight Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests Marian Knight is an NIHR Senior Investigator, award reference NIHR303806. She established the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) in 2005. She is the current Head of UKOSS and is an investigator and author of studies undertaken through the platform. Ruth Tunn is an author of articles reporting studies undertaken through UKOSS. Grant information This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Grant Reference Number NIHR3038060. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright © 2026 Tunn R and Knight M. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. metrics VIEWS $counts.viewCount downloads Citations CITE how to cite this article Tunn R and Knight M. Use of evidence from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System in policy and clinical practice: a descriptive study using citation tracking [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2026, 6:5 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14196.1) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 08 Jan 2026 Views 0 How to cite this report: Königbauer J. Reviewer Report For: Use of evidence from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System in policy and clinical practice: a descriptive study using citation tracking [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2026, 6:5 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15453.r40423) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/6-5/v1#referee-response-40423 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/6-5/v1#referee-response-40423 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 08 May 2026 Approved VIEWS 0 Dear authors, Thank you very much for your important research. The manuscript addresses an important and underexplored topic by evaluating the uptake of UKOSS-derived evidence into policy documents and clinical guidelines. The study is ... Continue reading I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close Thank you very much for your important research. The manuscript addresses an important and underexplored topic by evaluating the uptake of UKOSS-derived evidence into policy documents and clinical guidelines. The study is ... Continue reading Dear authors, Thank you very much for your important research. The manuscript addresses an important and underexplored topic by evaluating the uptake of UKOSS-derived evidence into policy documents and clinical guidelines. The study is well conceived, methodologically transparent, and provides valuable insights into the translation of maternal health research into policy and practice. The case studies are particularly informative and illustrate the breadth of influence of UKOSS evidence internationally. The manuscript’s main strengths are the comprehensive identification of UKOSS publications, the systematic use of Overton and Altmetric for policy citation tracking, and the thoughtful discussion of knowledge translation timelines. The findings are highly relevant for implementation science and maternal health policy research. However, the manuscript would benefit from several revisions. First, the distinction between policy citation, evidence uptake, and actual clinical or policy impact should be clarified more explicitly throughout the manuscript, as citations alone cannot demonstrate implementation or causal influence. Second, the paper is considerably longer than necessary, particularly in the case study sections, where several examples and quotations could be condensed without loss of content. Third, additional methodological clarification would strengthen reproducibility, particularly regarding citation date definitions, handling of updated guideline versions, and the implications of single-reviewer screening. Finally, the Discussion occasionally becomes speculative and would benefit from more cautious interpretation of the findings. Overall, this is a strong and potentially indexable study with clear relevance to policy translation and maternal health research. I would recommend minor revision, primarily to improve focus, analytical framing, and conciseness. Thank you very much for your important research. The manuscript addresses an important and underexplored topic by evaluating the uptake of UKOSS-derived evidence into policy documents and clinical guidelines. The study is well conceived, methodologically transparent, and provides valuable insights into the translation of maternal health research into policy and practice. The case studies are particularly informative and illustrate the breadth of influence of UKOSS evidence internationally. The manuscript’s main strengths are the comprehensive identification of UKOSS publications, the systematic use of Overton and Altmetric for policy citation tracking, and the thoughtful discussion of knowledge translation timelines. The findings are highly relevant for implementation science and maternal health policy research. However, the manuscript would benefit from several revisions. First, the distinction between policy citation, evidence uptake, and actual clinical or policy impact should be clarified more explicitly throughout the manuscript, as citations alone cannot demonstrate implementation or causal influence. Second, the paper is considerably longer than necessary, particularly in the case study sections, where several examples and quotations could be condensed without loss of content. Third, additional methodological clarification would strengthen reproducibility, particularly regarding citation date definitions, handling of updated guideline versions, and the implications of single-reviewer screening. Finally, the Discussion occasionally becomes speculative and would benefit from more cautious interpretation of the findings. Overall, this is a strong and potentially indexable study with clear relevance to policy translation and maternal health research. I would recommend minor revision, primarily to improve focus, analytical framing, and conciseness. - Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes - Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes - Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes - If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes - Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes - Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Obstretics, Quality care in obstetrics CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Königbauer J. Reviewer Report For: Use of evidence from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System in policy and clinical practice: a descriptive study using citation tracking [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2026, 6:5 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15453.r40423) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/6-5/v1#referee-response-40423 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/6-5/v1#referee-response-40423 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Views 0 How to cite this report: Wu P. Reviewer Report For: Use of evidence from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System in policy and clinical practice: a descriptive study using citation tracking [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2026, 6:5 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15453.r39805) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/6-5/v1#referee-response-39805 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/6-5/v1#referee-response-39805 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 23 Mar 2026 Approved VIEWS 0 Summary This manuscript provides a clear description of how the evidence generated through the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) has made an impact in terms of policy documents and clinical guidelines over its first 20 years. It uses an ... Continue reading I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close This manuscript provides a clear description of how the evidence generated through the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) has made an impact in terms of policy documents and clinical guidelines over its first 20 years. It uses an ... Continue reading Summary This manuscript provides a clear description of how the evidence generated through the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) has made an impact in terms of policy documents and clinical guidelines over its first 20 years. It uses an interesting methodology with citation tracking in Overton and Altmetric. The authors present in-depth case studies of highly cited articles and show that around two‑thirds of UKOSS studies have informed at least one policy or guideline, with citations from national and international organisations. The citations often persist many years after publication, but citation into formal documents can lag the publication itself by several years. Is the work clearly and accurately presented, and does it cite the current literature? This work is well written with a clear structure and accurate presentation throughout. It cites current literature within its methodological and policy context. The authors could consider referencing papers on research-policy translation and knowledge mobilisation, to widen the scope beyond Overton and Altmetric. Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? The methodology is appropriate for the aims of the study. The identification of UKOSS articles with an internal list augmented by Pubmed search is sound. The inclusion/exclusion criteria are logical and clearly described. The authors could consider stratified analyses of citations and latency by study design or topic area to provide more insight into the factors that affect impact. Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? The methods and analysis provide sufficient details to allow replication by others. If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? The descriptive statistics used in this work are appropriate for assessing citation patterns. The statistical analysis is clearly described and correctly interpreted. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Without contacting the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, full reproducibility is only partially achievable, as the list of included UKOSS articles was derived from both an internal UKOSS team list and a PubMed search. Although full reproducibility is possible by contacting the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, the process can take 4 weeks. Therefore, it would be helpful if a list of all included UKOSS articles could be provided in an open repository or in supplementary materials to accompany this manuscript. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? The results support the conclusions that UKOSS-derived evidence is widely used in policy and guidance, that citations are geographically diverse but focused in high‑income settings similar to the UK, and that the median citation latency is around four years. The case studies highlight the variety of citation contexts and their impact on policy or practice. The discussion fully addressed the limitations of the study. This manuscript provides a clear description of how the evidence generated through the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) has made an impact in terms of policy documents and clinical guidelines over its first 20 years. It uses an interesting methodology with citation tracking in Overton and Altmetric. The authors present in-depth case studies of highly cited articles and show that around two‑thirds of UKOSS studies have informed at least one policy or guideline, with citations from national and international organisations. The citations often persist many years after publication, but citation into formal documents can lag the publication itself by several years. Is the work clearly and accurately presented, and does it cite the current literature? This work is well written with a clear structure and accurate presentation throughout. It cites current literature within its methodological and policy context. The authors could consider referencing papers on research-policy translation and knowledge mobilisation, to widen the scope beyond Overton and Altmetric. Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? The methodology is appropriate for the aims of the study. The identification of UKOSS articles with an internal list augmented by Pubmed search is sound. The inclusion/exclusion criteria are logical and clearly described. The authors could consider stratified analyses of citations and latency by study design or topic area to provide more insight into the factors that affect impact. Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? The methods and analysis provide sufficient details to allow replication by others. If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? The descriptive statistics used in this work are appropriate for assessing citation patterns. The statistical analysis is clearly described and correctly interpreted. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Without contacting the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, full reproducibility is only partially achievable, as the list of included UKOSS articles was derived from both an internal UKOSS team list and a PubMed search. Although full reproducibility is possible by contacting the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, the process can take 4 weeks. Therefore, it would be helpful if a list of all included UKOSS articles could be provided in an open repository or in supplementary materials to accompany this manuscript. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? The results support the conclusions that UKOSS-derived evidence is widely used in policy and guidance, that citations are geographically diverse but focused in high‑income settings similar to the UK, and that the median citation latency is around four years. The case studies highlight the variety of citation contexts and their impact on policy or practice. The discussion fully addressed the limitations of the study. - Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes - Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes - Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes - If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes - Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes - Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: High risk obstetrics, maternal medicine CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Wu P. Reviewer Report For: Use of evidence from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System in policy and clinical practice: a descriptive study using citation tracking [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2026, 6:5 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15453.r39805) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/6-5/v1#referee-response-39805 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/6-5/v1#referee-response-39805 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: - Approved - Approved with reservations - Not approved | Invited Reviewers | || |---|---|---| | 1 | 2 | | | Version 1 08 Jan 26 | read | read | Sign up for content alerts You are now signed up to receive this alert Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' - Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. - You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. - You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). - You work at the same institute as any of the authors. - You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. - You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. - You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with NIHR Open Research Already registered? Sign in close Error If you are a previous or current NIHR award holder, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from NIHR Open Research. We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to NIHR Open Research Sign In If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. Email us for further assistance. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here. You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here. Code not correct, please try again Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait...