SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000
Home-like versus conventional institutional settings for birth.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- UK childbirth delivery options in 2001-2002: alternatives to consultant unit booking and delivery.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany home-like birth centres have been established near conventional labour wards for the care of pregnant women who prefer and require little or no medical intervention during labour and birth.
objectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the effects of care in a home-like birth environment compared to care in a conventional labour ward, on labour and birth outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register was searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing a home-like institutional birth environment to conventional hospital care for pregnant women at low risk of obstetric complications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed. MAIN
resultsFive trials involving almost 8000 women were included. Substantial numbers of women allocated to home-like settings were transferred to standard care before or during labour, making interpretation of results difficult. Allocation to a home-like setting was associated with lower rates of intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.93), fetal heart rate abnormalities (0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.81), augmented labour, and immobility during labour, as well as greater satisfaction with care, and increased likelihood of sore nipples and mastitis. There was a non-statistically significant trend towards higher perinatal mortality in the home-like setting (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 2.78). REVIEWER'S
conclusionsThere appear to be some benefits from home-like settings for childbirth, although increased support from caregivers may be more important. Caregivers and clients in home-like settings need to watch for signs of complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.