Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12917986›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Continuous support for women during childbirth.

E D Hodnett, S Gates, G J Hofmeyr, C Sakala

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 209 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Continuous support for women during childbirth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Continuous support for women during childbirth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  4. Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Complementary and alternative therapies for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2006
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

E D HodnettFaculty of Nursing, 50 St George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 3H4.
S Gates
G J Hofmeyr
C Sakala
National Childbirth Trust · GBUniversity of Fort Hare · ZAUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHistorically, women have been attended and supported by other women during labour. However, in recent decades in hospitals worldwide, continuous support during labour has become the exception rather than the routine. Concerns about the consequent dehumanization of women's birth experiences have led to calls for a return to continuous support by women for women during labour.

objectivesPrimary: to assess the effects, on mothers and their babies, of continuous, one-to-one intrapartum support compared with usual care. Secondary: to determine whether the effects of continuous support are influenced by: (1) routine practices and policies in the birth environment that may affect a woman's autonomy, freedom of movement, and ability to cope with labour; (2) whether the caregiver is a member of the staff of the institution; and (3) whether the continuous support begins early or later in labour. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (30 January 2003) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2003). SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials comparing continuous support during labour with usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration Pregnancy and Childbirth Group were used. All authors participated in evaluation of methodological quality. Data extraction was undertaken independently by one author and a research assistant. Additional information was sought from the trial authors. Results are presented using relative risk for categorical data and weighted mean difference for continuous data. MAIN

resultsFifteen trials involving 12,791 women are included. Primary comparison: Women who had continuous intrapartum support were less likely to have intrapartum analgesia, operative birth, or to report dissatisfaction with their childbirth experiences. Subgroup analyses: In general, continuous intrapartum support was associated with greater benefits when the provider was not a member of the hospital staff, when it began early in labour, and in settings in which epidural analgesia was not routinely available. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsAll women should have support throughout labour and birth.

Indexed as

Delivery, ObstetricLabor, ObstetricFemaleHumansMidwiferyObstetric NursingPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID12917986
OpenAlexW4239260359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.