Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15106181›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Giving women their own case notes to carry during pregnancy.

H C Brown, H J Smith

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Giving women their own case notes to carry during pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Data re-entry overload: time for a paradigm shift in maternity IT?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2011
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Self-management for people with inflammatory bowel disease.Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2008
    Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

H C BrownNational Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health, 27 Sussex Place, Regent's Park, London, UK, NW1 4RG.
H J Smith
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBRoyal Sussex County Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn many countries women are given their own case notes to carry during pregnancy so as to increase their sense of control and satisfaction with their care.

objectivesTo evaluate the effects of giving women their own case notes to carry during pregnancy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (January 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of women given their own case notes to carry during pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria and assessed study quality. One reviewer extracted data from the included studies using a standard form (checked by second reviewer). We assessed estimates of effect using relative risk with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN

resultsThree trials were included (n = 675 women). Women carrying their own notes were more likely to feel in control (relative risk (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 2.06). Women's satisfaction: one trial reported more women in the case notes group (66/95) were satisfied with their care than the control group (58/102) (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.52); two trials reported no difference in women's satisfaction (one trial provided no data and one trial used a 17 point satisfaction scale). More women in the case notes group wanted to carry their own notes in a subsequent pregnancy (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.24). Overall, the pooled estimate of the two trials (n = 347) that reported on the risk of notes lost or left at home was not significant (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.84). There was no difference for health related behaviours (cigarette smoking and breastfeeding), analgesia needs during labour, miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal deaths. More women in the case notes group had operative deliveries (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.12). REVIEWERS'

conclusionsThe three trials are small, and not all of them reported on all outcomes. The results suggest that there are both potential benefits (increased maternal control and satisfaction during pregnancy, increased availability of antenatal records during hospital attendance) and harms (more operative deliveries). Importantly, all of the trials report that more women in the case notes group would prefer to hold their antenatal records in another pregnancy. There is insufficient evidence on health related behaviours (smoking and breastfeeding) and clinical outcomes. It is important to emphasise that this review shows a lack of evidence of benefit rather than evidence of no benefit.

Indexed as

Medical RecordsPatient SatisfactionPrenatal CareFemaleHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15106181
OpenAlexW4252263529

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.