Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23076901›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Continuous support for women during childbirth.

Ellen D Hodnett, Simon Gates, G Justus Hofmeyr, Carol Sakala

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic 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. It is linked to trial NCT06024811 (Investigation of the Effect of Supporting Nursing Care Provided in Line With Evidence-Based Practices During Intrapartum Period), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT06024811 completednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Investigation of the Effect of Supporting Nursing Care Provided in Line With Evidence-Based Practices During Intrapartum Period

TypeobservationalSponsorBalikesir UniversityRan2020 to 2021Enrolled1ConditionsDelivery, Breech, StillbirthArmssupporting nursing care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,179 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Ellen D HodnettLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. ellen.hodnett@utoronto.ca.
Simon Gates
G Justus Hofmeyr
Carol Sakala
National Childbirth Trust · GBUniversity of Fort Hare · ZAUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHistorically, women have been attended and supported by other women during labour. However, in hospitals worldwide, continuous support during labour has become the exception rather than the routine.

objectivesPrimary: to assess the effects of continuous, one-to-one intrapartum support compared with usual care. Secondary: to determine whether the effects of continuous support are influenced by: (1) routine practices and policies; (2) the provider's relationship to the hospital and to the woman; and (3) timing of onset. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing continuous support during labour with usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted the data. We sought additional information from the trial authors. We used random-effects analyses for comparisons in which high heterogeneity was present, and we reported results using the average risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. MAIN

resultsTwenty-two trials involving 15,288 women met inclusion criteria and provided usable outcome data. Results are of random-effects analyses, unless otherwise noted. Women allocated to continuous support were more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.12) and less likely to have intrapartum analgesia (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) or to report dissatisfaction (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79). In addition, their labours were shorter (MD -0.58 hours, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.31), they were less likely to have a caesarean (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91) or instrumental vaginal birth (fixed-effect, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96), regional analgesia (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), or a baby with a low five-minute Apgar score (fixed-effect, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95). There was no apparent impact on other intrapartum interventions, maternal or neonatal complications, or breastfeeding. Subgroup analyses suggested that continuous support was most effective when the provider was neither part of the hospital staff nor the woman's social network, and in settings in which epidural analgesia was not routinely available. No conclusions could be drawn about the timing of onset of continuous support. AUTHORS'

conclusionsContinuous support during labour has clinically meaningful benefits for women and infants and no known harm. All women should have support throughout labour and birth.

Indexed as

Labor, ObstetricDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansMidwiferyObstetric NursingPerinatal CarePregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23076901
PMCPMC4175537
OpenAlexW2136296475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.