STUDY PROTOCOL The burden of iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol Mercy M. Imakando1,2, Ernest Maya1, David OwireduID 3, Mercy W. MondeID 4, Choolwe Jacobs5, Isaac Fwemba5, Kwadwo Owusu AkuffoID 6, Anthony Danso- AppiahID 3,7* 1 Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, School of Public Health, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana, 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Women and Newborn Hospital, University Teaching Hospitals, Lusaka, Zambia, 3 Centre for Evidence Synthesis and Policy, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana, 4 Medical Library, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia, 5 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia, 6 Department of Optometry and Visual Science, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana, 7 Department of Epidemiology and Disease Control, School of Public Health, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana * adanso-appiah@ug.edu.gh, tdappiah@yahoo.co.uk Abstract Background Obstetric fistulas are abnormal open connection(s) between the vagina and the urinary tract or the rectum resulting from tragic injuries sustained by mothers during childbirth that lead to urine and/or faecal incontinence. Due to the rapidly growing middle class in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and the corresponding quest for hospital delivery and caesarean section, sur- gery-related (iatrogenic) obstetric fistulas are on the rise. Worryingly, there is scanty data on surgery-related fistulas. This review aims to collate empirical evidence on the magnitude of iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in SSA, generate country-specific data and explore factors that influence obstetric surgery-related fistulas. Methods All relevant databases, PubMed, LILACS, CINAHL, SCOPUS and Google Scholar will be searched from 1st January 2000 to 31st March 2024 using search terms developed from the major concepts in the title without restrictions by language. The Cochrane Library, African Journals Online, Data Base of African Thesis and Dissertations Including Research (DATAD-R D Space) and preprint repositories will also be searched. Reference lists of rele- vant studies will be searched and experts in the field will be contacted for additional (unpub- lished) studies. The search output will be exported to Endnote where duplicate studies will be removed. The deduplicated studies will be exported to Rayyan where study screening and selection will be conducted. At least two authors will independently select studies, extract data and assess quality in the included studies using pretested tools. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved through discussion. Data analysis will be performed with PLOS ONE PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 August 26, 2024 1 / 12 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Imakando MM, Maya E, Owiredu D, Monde MW, Jacobs C, Fwemba I, et al. (2024) The burden of iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in Sub- Saharan Africa: Systematic review and meta- analysis protocol. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0302529. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 Editor: Ganesh Dangal, National Academy of Medical Sciences, NEPAL Received: November 12, 2023 Accepted: April 7, 2024 Published: August 26, 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Imakando et al. 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 author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion. Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4503-1850 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0433-8386 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6683-249X https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1747-0060 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0302529&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2024-08-26 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0302529&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2024-08-26 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0302529&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2024-08-26 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0302529&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2024-08-26 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0302529&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2024-08-26 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0302529&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2024-08-26 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ RevMan 5.4. Comparative binary outcomes will be reported as odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) and for continuous outcomes, mean difference and standard deviations (SDs) will be used. Non-comparative studies will be analysed as weighted proportions. Heterogeneity between studies will be assessed graphically and statistically, and where a significant level is detected, the random-effects model meta-analysis will be performed. All estimates will be reported with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where data permit, we will conduct sub- group and sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the estimates on key quality domains. The overall quality of the evidence will be assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Expected study outcomes This systematic review and meta-analysis uses rigorous methods and best practices to attempt to collate all empirical evidence and estimate country-specific proportions of iatro- genic (surgery-related) fistulas among obstetric fistula patients across countries in SSA. This review will explore context-specific variables, provide insights into their impact and relate them to the type and experience of personnel performing the obstetric procedures that lead to obstetric fistulas. The findings of the full review are expected to inform the devel- opment of national and regional Training Programs for Medical Officers, support the devel- opment of a consensus “minimum acceptable standard of care” and inform quality assurance standards for clinicians involved in the provision of surgical obstetric care. Background Obstetric fistulas, abnormal connection(s) between the vagina and the urinary tract (urethra, bladder or rarely ureters) or the rectum, resulting in urine and/or faecal incontinence, are seri- ous childbirth injuries sustained by mothers [1, 2]. The main cause of fistula development is obstructed labour [3] where prolonged pressure of the foetal presenting part (often the head) against the pubic bone compromises blood supply in the interposing vaginal and lower urinary tract tissue leading to tissue death, sloughing and fistula formation. Fistulas may also occur as complications of surgery (iatrogenic fistulas) [4–7]. A systematic review involving 15 studies published between 2010 and 2020 reported gynaecological surgery, obstructed labour, and cae- sarean section as the major causes of vesicovaginal fistulas [8]. Over 2 million women of reproductive age suffer obstetric fistulas, with thousands of new cases every year [9]. Most obstetric fistulas occur in SSA and Asia [10] where health systems are weak and failures to provide universally accessible, timely and quality obstetric care are common [11]. Europe and the United States of America have been able to address the fistula problems since the 1950’s and this has been attributed to the availability of universal access to quality healthcare delivery and emergency obstetric services [12]. However, this is still a major problem in SSA with shortage of trained staff, lack of or limited medical supplies, poor quality of care, long waiting times, poor referral systems and poor coordination of tasks among staff [13]. The distance pregnant women have to travel to access the nearest health facility, poor road networks and high transport costs further complicate the situation, limiting pregnant women’s access to quality care during childbirth across countries in SSA [14, 15]. Other pre- disposing factors to obstetric fistulas are small pelvis, foetal mal-presentations or abnormali- ties, duration of obstructed labour and therapeutic misadventure [16, 17]. Early child bearing PLOS ONE Iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 August 26, 2024 2 / 12 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 [15, 18], low educational levels [19–21] and poverty [22], as well as cultural factors such as female genital mutilation [23] and the patrilineal system that maintains male authority in the decision making process for obtaining healthcare influence health seeking behaviour and con- tribute to the increased risk of fistulas [24]. The effort to reduce maternal mortality and increase access to emergency obstetric care has resulted in increased caesarean section rates [25] which in turn has led to more surgery-related urogenital fistulas [26]. Although mostly occurring in the context of protracted labour, iatro- genic fistulas have been increasing in elective caesarean sections [27]. This raises serious con- cerns about the quality of obstetric care in SSA [28] and the training needs of healthcare professionals across these countries in the south of the Sahara [29]. A multi-country study involving sub-Saharan African countries observed that over 90% of obstetric surgeries result- ing in fistula were performed by non-specialists [27]. This is as a result of widespread surgical task shifting, commonly employed in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC’s) in attempts to mitigate the critical shortage of Specialist Surgical Workforce [30–32]. Currently, there are less than 3 specialists per 100,000 population in most SSA countries [33] of whom only a frac- tion are qualified obstetricians. Obstetric fistula prevention is an integral component of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) 3 and 5.6 –ensuring healthy lives for all and promoting universal access to sexual and reproductive health by 2030 [11]. It is, therefore, imperative that urgent effort be directed towards reducing and/or preventing this tragic consequence of child- birth in vulnerable pregnant women [34]. To justify our systematic review is not duplicating existing reviews, we conducted searches in relevant databases (described in the methods of the abstract and main document) and retrieved eleven reviews [8, 35–44] on fistulas. Of these, five had a global focus [8, 35, 37–38, 44], three focused on Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) [36, 39, 43] and three, Africa [40–42]. None of the systematic reviews covering LMICs or Africa focused on the issues our systematic review aims to investigate. Of the reviews having global focus, three [8, 35, 38] were somehow aligned with our review but two were published in 2013 and 2016 [35, 38] and are outdated, whereas the only relevant review [8] targeted only a single type of obstetric fistu- las, vesicovaginal fistula. This systematic review seeks to determine the magnitude of surgery-related obstetric fistu- las in SSA and relate the estimates to the type and experience of personnel (specialist or non- specialist) performing the surgical operations. The findings and conclusions will help inform sound policies, programs and human resource planning aimed at addressing the increasing levels of iatrogenic fistulas in SSA. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Proto- cols (PRISMA-P) (S1 Table) [45] will guide the reporting of this protocol and the PRISMA flow diagram (S1 Fig) [46] will guide the study selection process. The full review will be pre- pared in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) [47]. The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis is registered in the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), with registration ID CRD42021277993. Criteria for considering studies for this systematic review Types of studies. Any study, including randomized controlled trial (RCT), quasi-RCT, cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies will be eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies using secondary data, commentaries, editorials, opinions and country level statistical PLOS ONE Iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 August 26, 2024 3 / 12 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 reports will not be eligible for inclusion. Case studies and case series will not be eligible for inclusion because these are atypical and not representative of the source population. This study will not incorporate reviews, as the unit of analysis will be restricted to primary studies. Nevertheless, we will carefully examine the reviews to identify any potentially eligible studies that may not have been captured in our searches. If the study is a global review having, for example, SSA as a sub-set or sub-regional focus, such a review will not be included as a whole. Instead, we will retrieve studies conducted in SSA and assess for inclusion. If the study reported a country or regional estimate without a well-defined representative sample or sub- sample within the source population, it will not be eligible for inclusion. For a multi-country study that included studies from SSA and reported data separately for each country, data from the SSA country will be included. In cases where the results have been lumped together and there is no way of disaggregating the data, such studies will not be included. Commentaries or opinions will not be eligible for inclusion. Types of participants. The review will include women living in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) with urogenital or rectovaginal fistulas resulting from childbirth complications due to symphy- siotomies, episiotomies, operative vaginal deliveries (forceps or vacuum delivery), caesarean delivery, caesarean hysterectomy or laparotomy due to ruptured uterus and were co-included with the aforementioned, through vaginal deliveries. Women with urogenital or rectovaginal fistulae resulting from assault, gynaecological surgeries, malignancies or radiation will not be considered, except when reported concurrently with obstetric fistulas. Intervention/exposure. The exposure of interest is obstetric surgery including caesarean section, laparotomy for repair of raptured uterus, subtotal hysterectomy or hysterectomy for obstetric reasons such as raptured uterus and intractable postpartum haemorrhage. Controls. Controls will consist of women with urogenital or rectovaginal fistulas resulting from vaginal deliveries without any obstetric surgery. Outcomes. Primary outcome. • Proportion of iatrogenic obstetric fistulas among obstetric fistula patients measured as: Total number of obstetric fistulas arising from obstetric surgeries Total number of obstetric f istulas x 100 • Proportion of iatrogenic obstetric fistulas among genitourinary/rectovaginal fistula surgeries measured as: Total number of obstetric fistulas arising from obstetric surgery Total number of urogenital and rectovaginal f istulas x100 Secondary outcomes. • Personnel performing obstetric surgeries i.e. Clinical Officers/Medical Licentiates, General Medical Doctors/Practitioners, Registrars and Specialists Obstetrician-Gynaecologists • Correlates of surgery related obstetric fistulas amongst women in SSA Search methods for identification of studies. Studies (published and unpublished) from a wide range of sources will be retrieved and assessed for eligibility. All relevant databases, including PubMed, LILACS, CINAHL, SCOPUS and Google Scholar will be searched from 1st January 2000 to 31st March 2024 without language restriction using search terms developed PLOS ONE Iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 August 26, 2024 4 / 12 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 from the inclusion/exclusion (Table 1). We will also search African Journals Online (AJOL), Cochrane Library, Data Base of African Thesis and Dissertations Including Research (DATAD-R D Space) and preprint repositories for additional studies. Conference proceedings will be searched, and the reference lists of all potentially relevant studies will be checked to retrieve studies missed by our searches. Where necessary we will contact experts in the field across Africa and those affiliated to the International Society of Obstetric Fistula Surgeons (ISOF) and the International Federation of Gynaecologists and obstetricians (FIGO) via emails, and where necessary phone calls, to see if they have knowledge about any study (unpublished) we could include in the systematic review. Managing the search output and selecting studies The result from the databases will be exported to Endnote and duplicates removed. The dedu- plicated studies will be exported to Rayyan software [48] for screening and selection using a study selection flowchart (Fig 1). At least two authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts of retrieved articles and select studies. The full text of all potentially eligible studies will be retrieved and assessed for inclusion. The flow of studies through the selection process will be presented using the PRISMA flow diagram (S1 Fig). Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion between the review authors. Assessment of quality of the included studies. For observational studies, we will assess the risk of bias in the included studies using the quality assessment tool developed by Hoy et al. [49] (S2 Table). The tool assesses 10 domains, namely, representation, sampling, random selection, non-response bias, data collection, case definition, reliability tool, prevalence period, numerators and denominators. The first four domains assess the external validity in the included studies, whereas the remaining domains (5–10) assess internal validity. Responses to each of the 10 criteria on the tool will be judged as ‘low’, ‘high’ or ‘unclear’ risk of bias. The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) tool will be used to assess risk of bias in the included RCTs [50] (S3 Table). This tool consists of seven evidence-based criteria namely, sequence generation, Table 1. Search strategy developed for PubMed. Search Query Results 1 “Obstetric fistula” OR “Vesicovaginal fistula” OR “Vesico-vaginal fistula” “Vesicovaginal fistulae” OR “Vesico-vaginal fistulae” VVF OR “Rectovaginal fistula” OR “Recto-vaginal fistula” OR “Rectovaginal fistulae” OR “Recto-vaginal fistulae” OR RVF OR “Urogenital fistula” OR “Urethrovaginal fistula” OR “Urethrovaginal fistulae” OR “Urethro-vaginal fistula” OR “Urethro- vaginal fistulae” 2 Iatrogenic OR “surgery related” OR “caesarean section” OR “caesarean delivery” OR “caesarean hysterectomy” OR “emergency hysterectomy” OR “Subtotal Hysterectomy” 3 “Sub Saharan Africa” OR “Sub Saharan African” OR SSA OR Africa OR African OR Angola OR Benin OR Botswana OR “Burkina Faso” OR Burundi OR Cameroon OR “Cape Verde” OR “Central African Republic” OR Chad OR Comoros OR Congo OR “Congo Democratic Republic” OR “Cote d’Ivoire” OR Djibouti OR “Equatorial Guinea” OR Eritrea OR Eswatini OR Ethiopia OR Gabon OR Gambia OR Ghana OR Guinea OR”Guinea Bissau” OR “Ivory Coast” OR Kenya OR Lesotho OR Liberia OR Madagascar OR Malawi OR Mali OR Mauritania OR Mozambique OR Namibia OR Niger OR Nigeria OR Reunion OR Rwanda OR “Sao Tome and Principe” OR Senegal OR Seychelles OR “Sierra Leone” OR Somalia OR “South Africa” OR “South Sudan” OR Tanzania OR Togo OR Uganda OR “Western Sahara” OR Zambia OR Zimbabwe OR “West Africa” OR “West African” OR “Western Africa” OR “East Africa” OR “East African” OR “Eastern Africa” OR “Central Africa” or “Central African” OR “Southern Africa” OR “Southern African” 4 ((#1) AND (#2)) 5 ((#1) AND (#2)) AND (#3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529.t001 PLOS ONE Iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 August 26, 2024 5 / 12 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529.t001 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome data reporting and other biases. Responses to each criterion will be judged as ‘low’, ‘high’ or ‘unclear’ risk of bias. Each study’s overall risk of bias will be assessed by combining the risk of bias of the seven domains and judged as ‘low’, ‘high’ or ‘unclear’. If necessary, we will add the quality assessment tool developed by Munn et al. [51] (S4 Table). The tool is used to assess the internal and external validity of a wide range of study designs that contain prevalence data. It assesses nine quality domains: Fig 1. Study selection flow chart. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529.g001 PLOS ONE Iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 August 26, 2024 6 / 12 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529.g001 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 representativeness of the sample, appropriateness of recruitment, adequacy of sample size, appropriateness of descriptions and reporting of the study subjects and setting, as well as data coverage of the identified studies. The tool also addresses reliability and objectivity of the con- dition measured, appropriateness of statistical analyses and accountability for confounder, subgroups and differences. Each domain on the tool is assessed and assigned “yes”, “no”, “unclear” or “not applicable”. Two reviewers will independently assess quality of the included studies, any differences in responses will be discussed and where necessary a third reviewer will be engaged to resolve disagreements. The overall rating of risk of bias will be based mainly on the internal validity domains and rated as ‘low’ or ‘high’ quality using the Grading of Rec- ommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data extraction and management. Data will be extracted using a pre-tested data extrac- tion sheet developed in Excel. The following data will be extracted: study ID, country study was conducted, year study was conducted, study design, method of data collection, eligibility criteria and sample size. We will also extract data on criteria for diagnosis, types of fistulas, cause of fistulas, mode of delivery and foetal outcomes in antecedent pregnancy, number of iatrogenic obstetric fistulas, total number of obstetric fistulas and genitourinary/rectovaginal fistulas. Health systems variables such as level of expertise of the operating surgeon (non-spe- cialists: Clinical Officer, Medical Officer, General Practitioner/ General Medical Officers; and Specialists: Registrar(s) or Senior Registrar/Consultant Obstetrician Gynaecologists). At least two reviewers will extract data independently and resolve discrepancies through discussion. Data synthesis and assessment of heterogeneity. Review Manager will be used to run statistical analyses. Binary/dichotomous outcomes will be measured as odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) and continuous data will be measured as mean difference (MD), each will be reported with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity will be assessed at three lev- els, clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity. For the assessment of clinical hetero- geneity, we will explore differences between study characteristics such as the study populations, interventions, and outcomes. Methodological heterogeneity will explore differ- ences between studies in terms of their design and quality dimensions whereas for statistical heterogeneity, we will assess the variation of effects between studies by inspecting the forest plots for overlapping CIs and conducting statistical tests (chi-squared test and I-squared statis- tic (I2). Potential sources to be explored for the presence of heterogeneity in the present sys- tematic review include, but not limited to, differences in study designs and country where study was conducted as it is anticipated that there will be differences in systems and resources (human and material) in different countries and settings. Additionally, differences in fistula types, type of personnel conducting the surgery and type of surgery antecedent to obstetric fis- tula development, which are potential sources of heterogeneity, will form the basis for sub- group analyses. The I2 statistic will be used to measure the extent of heterogeneity across the studies in the meta-analysis [52]. The studies will be considered to have a low level of heteroge- neity if I2 is� 25%, moderate heterogeneity when I2 is 26–50% and high level of heterogeneity if I2 > 50% to 75% [53, 54]. A random-effects model will be employed in the case where het- erogeneity between studies is appreciable otherwise a fixed-effect model will be used where heterogeneity is low to moderate [55]. Subgroup analysis will be employed to address heterogeneity. Dealing with missing data. We will not impute data when addressing missing data but instead we will contact primary study authors and ask for the raw data, if possible, to enable us to extract the missing information. When it is not possible to obtain missing data, only records with complete data on the outcome will be included i.e. complete case analysis. Ethics and dissemination. The study does not require ethical clearance as it involves the use of secondary data. The results of the systematic review and meta-analysis will be shared PLOS ONE Iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 August 26, 2024 7 / 12 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 with stakeholders, presented at scientific conferences and published in a peer-reviewed jour- nal. The findings will also be shared on other public platforms such as Twitter, LinkedIn, and WhatsApp. Discussion Ending obstetric fistulas is a public health and human rights priority [11]. However, if iatro- genic fistulas continue to occur at present rates, a substantial caseload of fistulas will remain for years to come, even if fistulas from prolonged obstructed labour are eliminated [56]. The shift in the cause of obstetric fistulas from obstructed labour to iatrogenic injury raises serious concerns about the quality of obstetric operative care. This study will provide insights into the burden of iatrogenic obstetric fistulas and type of personnel performing surgeries preceding fistula development. The systematic review findings will be useful for informing training pro- gram standards for medical officers contribute to the development of a consensus “minimum acceptable standard of care” and inform quality assurance standards for clinicians involved in the provision of surgical obstetric care. Additionally, the gaps identified from the systematic review will inform the scientific community on research priorities tailored towards reduction of preventable maternal morbidity. Study limitations The anticipated low quality of the individual primary studies that will be included may affect the quality of evidence generated from the review. We will attempt to address quality-related limitations by conducting risk of bias assessment using validated tools specified in the text. There is also the potential for publication bias that may result from under-reporting of studies with negative findings. Gray literature and Dissertation databases will be explored to minimise exclusion of such evidence. Implications of the anticipated review findings The estimation of burden of fistulas across countries in SSA will generate country-specific data for countries with less developed evidence synthesis expertise to have reliable evidence to inform country-specific and context-relevant policies that will enhance obstetric surgical care. The systematic review can also provide tailored evidence base that can inform standards for medical officer training programs, aid in the establishment of a universally accepted "mini- mum standard of care," and guide quality assurance criteria for clinicians engaged in obstetric surgical care provision. The gaps identified from the systematic review will potentially inform future research priorities tailored towards reduction of preventable maternal morbidity. Supporting information S1 Fig. PRISMA-P 2020 flow diagram to show studies retrieved from electronic databases and other sources for inclusion and flow to the final stage with studies included in the sys- tematic review. (TIF) S1 Table. PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist. (DOCX) S2 Table. Hoy et al. tool. (DOCX) PLOS ONE Iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 August 26, 2024 8 / 12 http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529.s001 http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529.s002 http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529.s003 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 S3 Table. Cochrane risk of bias tool. (DOCX) S4 Table. Munn et al. tool. (DOCX) Acknowledgments We would like to thank Professor Gehanath Baral and the anonymous reviewer for their useful comments. This systematic review was prepared as part of the capacity-building initiative of the Centre for Evidence Synthesis and Policy (CESP), University of Ghana and the Africa Communities of Evidence Synthesis and Translation (ACEST) that train health professionals in evidence synthesis and translation across countries in Africa and Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). Dr Mercy Monde Imakando is a Consultant Obstetrician Gynaecologist specializing in Evidence Synthesis and Translation; she is mentored by Prof. Anthony Danso- Appiah (Director, Centre for Evidence Synthesis and Policy). Author Contributions Conceptualization: Mercy M. Imakando, David Owiredu, Anthony Danso-Appiah. Investigation: David Owiredu. Methodology: Mercy M. Imakando, Ernest Maya, David Owiredu, Mercy W. Monde, Choolwe Jacobs, Isaac Fwemba, Kwadwo Owusu Akuffo, Anthony Danso-Appiah. Project administration: Mercy M. Imakando. Resources: Mercy M. Imakando, Ernest Maya, David Owiredu, Mercy W. Monde, Choolwe Jacobs, Isaac Fwemba, Kwadwo Owusu Akuffo, Anthony Danso-Appiah. Supervision: Anthony Danso-Appiah. Validation: Mercy M. Imakando, Ernest Maya, David Owiredu, Mercy W. Monde, Choolwe Jacobs, Isaac Fwemba, Kwadwo Owusu Akuffo, Anthony Danso-Appiah. Writing – original draft: Mercy M. Imakando, Ernest Maya, David Owiredu, Mercy W. Monde, Choolwe Jacobs, Isaac Fwemba, Kwadwo Owusu Akuffo, Anthony Danso-Appiah. Writing – review & editing: Mercy M. Imakando, Ernest Maya, David Owiredu, Mercy W. Monde, Choolwe Jacobs, Isaac Fwemba, Kwadwo Owusu Akuffo, Anthony Danso-Appiah. References 1. UNFPA. Obstetric Fistula: United Nations Population Fund 2022 [updated 2022 May 23 cited 2022 May 31]. https://www.unfpa.org/obstetric-fistula. 2. Polan ML, Sleemi A, Bedane MM, Lozo S, Morgan MA. Obstetric Fistula. In: Debas HT, Donkor P, Gawande A, Jamison DT, Kruk ME, Mock CN, editors. Essential Surgery: Disease Control Priorities, Third Edition (Volume 1). Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Develop- ment / The World Bank; 2015. 3. Dangal G, Thapa K, Yangzom K, Karki A. Obstetric Fistula in the Developing World: An Agonising Trag- edy. Nepal J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 8. https://doi.org/10.3126/njog.v8i2.9759 4. Creanga AA, Ahmed S, Genadry RR, Stanton C. Prevention and treatment of obstetric fistula: Identify- ing research needs and public health priorities. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2007; 99:S151–S4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.06.037 PMID: 17869257 5. Arrowsmith S, Hamlin EC, Wall LL. Obstructed labor injury complex: obstetric fistula formation and the multifaceted morbidity of maternal birth trauma in the developing world. Obstetrical & gynecological PLOS ONE Iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 August 26, 2024 9 / 12 http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529.s004 http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529.s005 https://www.unfpa.org/obstetric-fistula https://doi.org/10.3126/njog.v8i2.9759 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.06.037 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17869257 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 survey. 1996; 51(9):568–74. Epub 1996/09/01. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-199609000-00024 PMID: 8873157 6. Sih AM, Kopp DM, Tang JH, Rosenberg NE, Chipungu E, Harfouche M, et al. Association between par- ity and fistula location in women with obstetric fistula: a multivariate regression analysis. BJOG: an inter- national journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 2016; 123(5):831–6. Epub 2016/02/09. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1471-0528.13901 PMID: 26853525 7. Reisenauer C. Presentation and management of rectovaginal fistulas after delivery. Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27(6):859–64. Epub 2015/10/20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2860-0 PMID: 26476822 8. Shrestha DB, Budhathoki P, Karki P, Jha P, Mainali G, Dangal G, et al. Vesico-Vaginal Fistula in Females in 2010–2020: a Systemic Review and Meta-analysis. Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif). 2022; 29(12):3346–64. Epub 2022/01/05. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00832-8 PMID: 34981462 9. WHO. Obstetric Fistula: Worl Health Organisation; 2018 [updated 2018 February 19 cited 2021 July 6]. https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/10-facts-on-obstetric-fistula. 10. Miller S, Lester F, Webster M, Cowan B. Obstetric fistula: a preventable tragedy. Journal of midwifery & women’s health. 2005; 50(4):286–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2005.03.009 PMID: 15973264 11. UNGA. UN Report on Obstetric Fistula 2020. UNFPA Campaign to End Fistula Website Inited Nations General Assembly, 2020 2020, July 28th Report No.: A/75/264 Contract No.: July 14th 12. Ahmed S, Tunçalp Ö. Burden of obstetric fistula: from measurement to action. The Lancet Global Health. 2015; 3(5):e243–e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70105-1 PMID: 25889463 13. Geleto A, Chojenta C, Musa A, Loxton D. Barriers to access and utilization of emergency obstetric care at health facilities in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of literature. Journal of Systematic Reviews. 2018; 7(1):1–14. 14. Capes T, Ascher-Walsh C, Abdoulaye I, Brodman MJMSJoMAJoT, Medicine P. Obstetric fistula in low and middle income countries 2011; 78(3):352–61. 15. Melah GS, Massa AA, Yahaya UR, Bukar M, Kizaya DD, El-Nafaty AU. Risk factors for obstetric fistulae in north-eastern Nigeria. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology: the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2007; 27(8):819–23. Epub 2007/12/22. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01443610701709825 PMID: 18097903. 16. Norman AM, Breen M, Richter HE. Prevention of obstetric urogenital fistulae: some thoughts on a daunting task. J International Urogynecology Journal. 2007; 18(5):485–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00192-006-0248-x PMID: 17160530 17. Wall LL. A framework for analyzing the determinants of obstetric fistula formation. Studies in Family Planning. 2012; 43(4):255–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4465.2012.00325.x PMID: 23239246 18. Tebeu PM, Maninzou SD, Kengne Fosso G, Jemea B, Fomulu JN, Rochat CH. Risk factors for obstetric vesicovaginal fistula at University Teaching Hospital, Yaoundé, Cameroon. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstet- rics. 2012; 118(3):256–8. Epub 2012/06/26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.04.011 PMID: 22727057. 19. Roka ZG, Akech M, Wanzala P, Omolo J, Gitta S, Waiswa P. Factors associated with obstetric fistulae occurrence among patients attending selected hospitals in Kenya, 2010: a case control study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13:56. Epub 2013/03/02. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-56 PMID: 23448615 20. Barageine JK, Tumwesigye NM, Byamugisha JK, Almroth L, Faxelid E. Risk factors for obstetric fistula in Western Uganda: a case control study. PLoS One. 2014; 9(11):e112299. Epub 2014/11/18. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112299 PMID: 25401756 21. Tebeu PM, de Bernis L, Doh AS, Rochat CH, Delvaux T. Risk factors for obstetric fistula in the Far North Province of Cameroon. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2009; 107(1):12–5. Epub 2009/07/11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.05.019 PMID: 19589525. 22. McCurdie FK, Moffatt J, Jones K. Vesicovaginal fistula in Uganda. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecol- ogy: the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2018; 38(6):822–7. Epub 2018/03/11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2017.1407301 PMID: 29523027. 23. Pope RJ, Brown RH, Chipungu E, Hollier LH Jr., Wilkinson JP. The use of Singapore flaps for vaginal reconstruction in women with vaginal stenosis with obstetric fistula: a surgical technique. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 2018; 125(6):751–6. Epub 2017/10/06. https://doi. org/10.1111/1471-0528.14952 PMID: 28981186. 24. Changole J, Thorsen VC, Kafulafula U. A road to obstetric fistula in Malawi: capturing women’s perspec- tives through a framework of three delays. Int J Womens Health. 2018; 10:699–713. https://doi.org/10. 2147/IJWH.S171610 PMID: 30464646. PLOS ONE Iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 August 26, 2024 10 / 12 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-199609000-00024 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8873157 https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13901 https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13901 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26853525 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2860-0 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26476822 https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00832-8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34981462 https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/10-facts-on-obstetric-fistula https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2005.03.009 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15973264 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X%2815%2970105-1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25889463 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610701709825 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610701709825 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18097903 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0248-x https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0248-x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17160530 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4465.2012.00325.x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23239246 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.04.011 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22727057 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-56 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23448615 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112299 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112299 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25401756 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.05.019 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589525 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2017.1407301 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29523027 https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14952 https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14952 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28981186 https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S171610 https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S171610 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30464646 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 25. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990–2014. PloS one. 2016; 11(2):e0148343. Epub 2016/02/06. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343 PMID: 26849801 26. El-Lamie IK. Urogenital fistulae: changing trends and personal experience of 46 cases. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008; 19(2):267–72. Epub 2007/07/20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-007- 0426-5 PMID: 17639345. 27. Raassen TJ, Ngongo CJ, Mahendeka MM. Iatrogenic genitourinary fistula: an 18-year retrospective review of 805 injuries. International Urogynecology Journal. 2014; 25(12):1699–706. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00192-014-2445-3 PMID: 25062654 28. Onsrud M, Sjøveian S, Mukwege D. Cesarean delivery-related fistulae in the Democratic Republic of Congo. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Feder- ation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2011; 114(1):10–4. Epub 2011/05/03. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijgo.2011.01.018 PMID: 21529808. 29. Tasnim N, Bangash K, Amin O, Luqman S, Hina H. Rising trends in iatrogenic urogenital fistula: A new challenge. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2020; 148(S1):33–6. https://doi.org/10. 1002/ijgo.13037 PMID: 31943186 30. Schneeberger C, Mathai M. Emergency obstetric care: Making the impossible possible through task shifting. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Feder- ation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2015; 131 Suppl 1:S6–S9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.02. 004 PMID: 26433509. 31. Federspiel F, Mukhopadhyay S, Milsom P, Scott JW, Riesel JN, Meara JG. Global surgical and anaes- thetic task shifting: a systematic literature review and survey. Lancet. 2015; 385 Suppl 2:S46. Epub 2015/08/28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60841-8 PMID: 26313095. 32. Hoyler M, Hagander L, Gillies R, Riviello R, Chu K, Bergström S, et al. Surgical care by non-surgeons in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Lancet (London, England). 2015; 385 Suppl 2:S42. Epub 2015/08/28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60837-6 PMID: 26313091. 33. WorldBank. Specialist Surgical Workforce (per 100, 000 population) worldbank.org: World Bank; 2021 [updated 2021 August 11 cited 2021 August 13]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.SAOP. P5?end=2018&start=2010. 34. Kyei-Nimakoh M, Carolan-Olah M, McCann TV. Access barriers to obstetric care at health facilities in sub-Saharan Africa-a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1):110. Epub 2017/06/08. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s13643-017-0503-x PMID: 28587676. 35. Adler AJ, Ronsmans C, Calvert C, Filippi V. Estimating the prevalence of obstetric fistula: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13:246. Epub 2014/01/01. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/1471-2393-13-246 PMID: 24373152. 36. Cowgill KD, Bishop J, Norgaard AK, Rubens CE, Gravett MG. Obstetric fistula in low-resource coun- tries: an under-valued and under-studied problem—systematic review of its incidence, prevalence, and association with stillbirth. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015; 15:193. Epub 2015/08/27. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s12884-015-0592-2 PMID: 26306705. 37. Miklos JR, Moore RD, Chinthakanan O. Laparoscopic and Robotic-assisted Vesicovaginal Fistula Repair: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology. 2015; 22 (5):727–36. Epub 2015/03/15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.03.001 PMID: 25764976. 38. Hillary CJ, Osman NI, Hilton P, Chapple CR. The Aetiology, Treatment, and Outcome of Urogenital Fis- tulae Managed in Well- and Low-resourced Countries: A Systematic Review. European urology. 2016; 70(3):478–92. Epub 2016/02/29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.015 PMID: 26922407. 39. Baker Z, Bellows B, Bach R, Warren C. Barriers to obstetric fistula treatment in low-income countries: a systematic review. Tropical medicine & international health: TM & IH. 2017; 22(8):938–59. Epub 2017/ 05/17. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12893 PMID: 28510988. 40. Torloni MR, Riera R, Rogozińska E, Tunçalp Ö, Gülmezoglu AM, Widmer M. Systematic review of shorter versus longer duration of bladder catheterization after surgical repair of urinary obstetric fistula. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2018; 142(1):15–22. Epub 2018/02/15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12462 PMID: 29441572. 41. Lufumpa E, Doos L, Lindenmeyer A. Barriers and facilitators to preventive interventions for the develop- ment of obstetric fistulas among women in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18(1):155. Epub 2018/05/12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1787-0 PMID: 29747604. 42. El Ayadi AM, Painter CE, Delamou A, Barr-Walker J, Korn A, Obore S, et al. Rehabilitation and reinte- gration programming adjunct to female genital fistula surgery: A systematic scoping review. Interna- tional journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of PLOS ONE Iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 August 26, 2024 11 / 12 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26849801 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-007-0426-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-007-0426-5 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17639345 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2445-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2445-3 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25062654 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.01.018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.01.018 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21529808 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13037 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13037 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31943186 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.02.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.02.004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26433509 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736%2815%2960841-8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26313095 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736%2815%2960837-6 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26313091 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.SAOP.P5?end=2018&start=2010 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.SAOP.P5?end=2018&start=2010 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0503-x https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0503-x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28587676 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-246 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-246 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24373152 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0592-2 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0592-2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26306705 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.03.001 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25764976 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.015 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26922407 https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12893 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28510988 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12462 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29441572 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1787-0 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29747604 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2020; 148 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):42–58. Epub 2020/01/17. https://doi.org/10. 1002/ijgo.13039 PMID: 31943181. 43. Frajzyngier V, Ruminjo J, Barone MA. Factors influencing urinary fistula repair outcomes in developing countries: a systematic review. American journal of obstetrics gynecology. 2012; 207(4):248–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.02.006 PMID: 22475385 44. Bonavina G, Busnelli A, Acerboni S, Martini A, Candiani M, Bulfoni A. Surgical repair of post-cesarean vesicouterine fistula: A systematic review and a plea for prevention. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2023. Epub 2023/12/06. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15256 PMID: 38055313. 45. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015; 4(1):1–9. Epub 2015/01/03. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 PMID: 25554246. 46. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2021; 372:n71. Epub 2021/03/31. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 PMID: 33782057. 47. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta- analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine. 2009; 6(7):e1000097. Epub 2009/07/22. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PMID: 19621072. 48. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic reviews. 2016; 5(1):210. Epub 2016/12/07. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016- 0384-4 PMID: 27919275. 49. Hoy D, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, March L, Bain C, et al. Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2012; 65(9):934–9. Epub 2012/06/30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014 PMID: 22742910. 50. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collabora- tion’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2011; 343:d5928. Epub 2011/10/20. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 PMID: 22008217. 51. Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. International journal of evidence-based healthcare. 2015; 13(3):147–53. Epub 2015/09/01. https://doi.org/10.1097/ XEB.0000000000000054 PMID: 26317388. 52. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2003; 327(7414):557–60. Epub 2003/09/06. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327. 7414.557 PMID: 12958120. 53. Huedo-Medina TB, Sánchez-Meca J, Marı́n-Martı́nez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta- analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychological methods. 2006; 11(2):193–206. Epub 2006/06/21. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193 PMID: 16784338. 54. UK C. How to read a forest plot?: Cochrane UK; 2016 [updated 2022 July 11 cited 2022 July 12]. https:// uk.cochrane.org/news/how-read-forest-plot. 55. Sedgwick P. Meta-analyses: what is heterogeneity? BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2015; 350:h1435. Epub 2015/03/18. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1435 PMID: 25778910. 56. Plus FC. Iatrogenic Fistula: an Urgent Quality of Care Challenge: Fistula Care Plus, USAID, Engender Health; 2016 [cited 2023 October 26]. https://fistulacare.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Iatrogenic- fistula-technical-brief_2016-1.pdf. PLOS ONE Iatrogenic obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529 August 26, 2024 12 / 12 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13039 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13039 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31943181 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.02.006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22475385 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15256 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38055313 https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25554246 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33782057 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19621072 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27919275 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22742910 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22008217 https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000054 https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000054 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26317388 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12958120 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16784338 https://uk.cochrane.org/news/how-read-forest-plot https://uk.cochrane.org/news/how-read-forest-plot https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1435 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25778910 https://fistulacare.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Iatrogenic-fistula-technical-brief_2016-1.pdf https://fistulacare.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Iatrogenic-fistula-technical-brief_2016-1.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302529