Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22972043›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth.

Ole Olsen, Jette A Clausen

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
17.3field-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.

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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 158 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Place and space in relation to childbirth: a critical interpretive synthesis.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Cost analysis of planned out-of-hospital births in Italy.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Planned Home Birth in Low-Risk Pregnancies in Spain: A Descriptive Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ole OlsenThe Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen,Copenhagen K, Denmark. ole.olsen@sund.ku.dk.ole.cph@gmail.com.
Jette A Clausen
Metropolitan University College · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

Department of Health 10/4001/02Department of Health SRP/10/4001/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObservational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned home birth in many places can be as safe as planned hospital birth and with less intervention and fewer complications. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1998.

objectivesTo assess the effects of planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth in selected low-risk women, assisted by an experienced midwife with collaborative medical back up in case transfer should be necessary. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 March 2012) and contacted editors and authors involved with possible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The two review authors as independently as possible assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN

resultsTwo trials met the inclusion criteria but only one trial involving 11 women provided some outcome data and was included. The evidence from this trial was of moderate quality and too small to allow conclusions to be drawn. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is no strong evidence from randomised trials to favour either planned hospital birth or planned home birth for low-risk pregnant women. However, the trials show that women living in areas where they are not well informed about home birth may welcome ethically well-designed trials that would ensure an informed choice. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be as important to prepare a regularly updated systematic review including observational studies as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions as to attempt to set up new randomised controlled trials.

Indexed as

HospitalizationDelivery, ObstetricDelivery RoomsFemaleHome ChildbirthHumansPatient Care PlanningPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID22972043
PMCPMC4238062
OpenAlexW1497792993

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.