Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20556746›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Support during pregnancy for women at increased risk of low birthweight babies.

Ellen D Hodnett, Suzanne Fredericks, Julie Weston

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03351465 (A Randomized Controlled Trial of Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
15.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT03351465 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management (CALM) for Pregnant and Postpartum Women

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, Los AngelesRan2020 to 2020Enrolled0ConditionsAnxiety, Depression, Depression, Postpartum, Pregnancy RelatedArmsCoordinated Anxiety Learning and Management
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 164 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Home uterine monitoring for detecting preterm labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Maternity homes and social support: A cross-sectional survey stratifying outcomes.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ellen D HodnettLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Suite 130, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5T 1P8.
Suzanne Fredericks
Julie Weston
University of Toronto · CAToronto Metropolitan University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies consistently show a relationship between social disadvantage and low birthweight. Many countries have programs offering special assistance to women thought to be at risk for giving birth to a low birthweight infant. These programs may include advice and counseling (about nutrition, rest, stress management, alcohol, and recreational drug use), tangible assistance (e.g., transportation to clinic appointments, household help), and emotional support. The programs may be delivered by multidisciplinary teams of health professionals, specially trained lay workers, or combination of lay and professional workers.

objectivesThe primary objective was to assess effects of programs offering additional social support compared with routine care, for pregnant women believed at high risk for giving birth to babies that are either preterm or weigh less than 2500 gm, or both, at birth. Secondary objectives were to determine whether effectiveness of support was mediated by timing of onset (early versus later in pregnancy) or type of provider (healthcare professional or lay woman). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of additional support during at-risk pregnancy by either a professional (social worker, midwife, or nurse) or specially trained lay person, compared to routine care. We defined additional support as some form of emotional support (e.g., counseling, reassurance, sympathetic listening) and information or advice or both, either in home visits or during clinic appointments, and could include tangible assistance (e.g., transportation to clinic appointments, assistance with care of other children at home). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors evaluated methodological quality. We performed double data entry. MAIN

resultsWe included 17 trials (12,264 women). Programs offering additional social support for at-risk pregnant women were not associated with improvements in any perinatal outcomes, but there was a reduction in the likelihood of antenatal hospital admission (three trials; n = 737; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92) and caesarean birth (nine trials; n = 4522; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97). AUTHORS'

conclusionsPregnant women need the support of caring family members, friends, and health professionals. While programs which offer additional support during pregnancy are unlikely to prevent the pregnancy from resulting in a low birthweight or preterm baby, they may be helpful in reducing the likelihood of antenatal hospital admission and caesarean birth.

Indexed as

Infant, Low Birth WeightPregnancy, High-RiskSocial SupportFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematurePregnancyPregnancy OutcomePrenatal CareRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID20556746
OpenAlexW1965323150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.