Correction

This article refers to:

A rapid systematic review of postpartum bladder care guidelines and recommendations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

Article title: A rapid systematic review of postpartum bladder care guidelines and recommendations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

Authors: Olga Divakova, Demetri Panayi, Zainab Khan, Stergios K. Doumouchtsis

Journal: Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Bibliometrics: Volume 42, Number 7, pages 2634–2642

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2022.2126751

The following article was inadvertently omitted from the references in the published paper:

Divakova O, Panayi D, Khan Z, Doumouchtsis S, 2021, A rapid systematic review of postpartum bladder care guidelines and recommendations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. ICS 2021 Melbourne Online, Abstract 156 https://www.ics.org/2021/abstract/156

The ‘guideline selection’ information provided in the paper was as follows:

The extracted guidelines were organised and duplicates were removed. One reviewer (OD) screened the full content of the guidelines to assess eligibility. A second reviewer (SKD) screened all excluded guidelines. Any discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus. We included national and international guidelines and recommendations providing information on postpartum bladder care and management of PPUR. Local or regional guidelines were excluded.

This section has now been corrected and updated to include information on the inclusion / exclusion criteria as follows:

Inclusion criteria were: (i) English was used as the reporting language; (ii) national or international guidelines, or guidances, or recommendations; (iii) contained recommendations on postpartum bladder care and/or management of postpartum urinary retention; (iv) most recently updated guidelines, or guidances, or recommendations when multiple versions were identified. Our exclusion criteria were: (i) local or regional guidelines, or guidances, or recommendations; (ii) overlapping guidelines, or guidances, or recommendations from the same organisation. The extracted guidelines were organised and duplicates were removed. One reviewer (OD) screened the full content of the guidelines to assess eligibility. A second reviewer (SKD) screened all excluded guidelines. Any discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus.