SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008
Midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
94 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effects of dance on maternal childbirth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of midwifery-led care on pregnancy outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Pooled it
- Delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Perineal techniques during the second stage of labour for reducing perineal trauma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Costing Alternative Birth Settings for Women at Low Risk of Complications: A Systematic Review.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Facilitators and barriers to quality of care in maternal, newborn and child health: a global situational analysis through metareview.BMJ open · 2014Pooled it
- Antenatal interventions to reduce preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews.BMC research notes · 2014Pooled it
- Completeness of reporting of setting and health worker cadre among trials on antenatal iron and folic acid supplementation in pregnancy: an assessment based on two Cochrane reviews.Systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Public health interventions in midwifery: a systematic review of systematic reviews.BMC public health · 2012Pooled it
- Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- The effectiveness of antenatal care programmes to reduce infant mortality and preterm birth in socially disadvantaged and vulnerable women in high-income countries: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2011Pooled it
- Parenteral opioids for maternal pain relief in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) increases women's satisfaction with antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care: results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2016Trial
- Comparison of the effects of maternal supportive care and acupressure (BL32 acupoint) on pregnant women's pain intensity and delivery outcome.Journal of pregnancy · 2014Trial
- Does continuity of care impact decision making in the next birth after a caesarean section (VBAC)? a randomised controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2013Trial
34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMidwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led and other models of care.
objectivesTo compare midwife-led models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2008), Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's Trials Register (January 2008), Current Contents (1994 to January 2008), CINAHL (1982 to August 2006), Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, ISI Proceedings, (1990 to 2008), and the WHO Reproductive Health Library, No. 9. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led or other models of care during pregnancy, and where care is provided during the ante- and intrapartum period in the midwife-led model. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All authors evaluated methodological quality. Two authors independently checked the data extraction. MAIN
resultsWe included 11 trials (12,276 women). Women who had midwife-led models of care were less likely to experience antenatal hospitalisation, risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.99), the use of regional analgesia (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91), episiotomy (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.88), and instrumental delivery (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96) and were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.29), spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06), to feel in control during labour and childbirth (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.30), attendance at birth by a known midwife (RR 7.84, 95% CI 4.15 to 14.81) and initiate breastfeeding (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.76). In addition, women who were randomised to receive midwife-led care were less likely to experience fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97), and their babies were more likely to have a shorter length of hospital stay (mean difference -2.00, 95% CI -2.15 to -1.85). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for overall fetal loss/neonatal death (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), or fetal loss/neonatal death of at least 24 weeks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.53). AUTHORS'
conclusionsAll women should be offered midwife-led models of care and women should be encouraged to ask for this option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18843666What 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.