Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19821282›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Antenatal day care units versus hospital admission for women with complicated pregnancy.

Therese Dowswell, Philippa Middleton, Andrew Weeks

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and hypertension.BMJ clinical evidence · 2011
    Pooled it
  5. Brazilian Guidelines of Hypertension - 2025.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Brazilian Guidelines of Hypertension - 2020.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Therese DowswellCochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, School of Reproductive and Developmental Medicine, Division of Perinatal and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Liverpool, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK, L8 7SS.
Philippa Middleton
Andrew Weeks
Liverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBWomen's and Children's Hospital · AU

Funding

Department of Health CPGS02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntenatal day care units have been widely used as an alternative to inpatient care for women with pregnancy complications including mild and moderate hypertension, and preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes.

objectivesThe objective of this review is to compare day care units with routine care or hospital admission for women with pregnancy complications in terms of maternal and perinatal outcomes, length of hospital stay, acceptability, and costs to women and health services providers. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (February 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing day care with inpatient or routine care for women with complicated pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently carried out data extraction and assessed studies for risk of bias. MAIN

resultsThree trials with a total of 504 women were included. For most outcomes it was not possible to pool results from trials in meta-analyses as outcomes were measured in different ways.Compared with women in the ward/routine care group, women attending day care units were less likely to be admitted to hospital overnight (risk ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.62). The average length of antenatal admission was shorter for women attending for day care, although outpatient attendances were increased for this group. There was evidence from one study that women attending for day care were significantly less likely to undergo induction of labour, but mode of birth was similar for women in both groups. For other outcomes there were no significant differences between groups.The evidence regarding the costs of different types of care was mixed; while the length of antenatal hospital stays were reduced, this did not necessarily translate into reduced health service costs.While most women tended to be satisfied with whatever care they received, women preferred day care compared with hospital admission. AUTHORS'

conclusionsSmall studies suggest that there are no major differences in clinical outcomes for mothers or babies between antenatal day units or hospital admission, but women may prefer day care.

Indexed as

Day Care, MedicalHospitalizationHospital UnitsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansHypertensionLength of StayPregnancyPregnancy Complications, CardiovascularPremature Rupture of Fetal MembranesRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID19821282
PMCPMC4171387
OpenAlexW2129021860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.