Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26465209›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Giving women their own case notes to carry during pregnancy.

Heather C Brown, Helen J Smith, Rintaro Mori, Hisashi Noma

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Patients', carers' and healthcare providers' views of patient-held health records in Kerala, India: A qualitative exploratory study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Heather C BrownDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton, UK, BN2 5BE.
Helen J Smith
Rintaro Mori
Hisashi Noma
National Center For Child Health and Development · JPRoyal Sussex County Hospital · GBThe Institute of Statistical Mathematics · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn many countries women are given their own case notes to carry during pregnancy to increase their sense of control over, and satisfaction with, their care.

objectivesTo evaluate the effects of giving women their own case notes to carry during pregnancy. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of women given their own case notes to carry during pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and assessed study quality. One review author extracted data from the included studies using a standard form (checked by second review author). We assessed estimates of effect using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsFour trials were included (n = 1176 women). Overall, the quality of the evidence was graded as low to moderate mainly due to the nature of the intervention not allowing blinding. The updated search identified one cluster-randomised trial, which was included.Women carrying their own notes were more likely to feel in control (two trials, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.06; 450 women; moderate quality evidence), although there is no evidence of difference in women's satisfaction (two trials, average RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.29); 698 women; low quality evidence). More women in the case notes group wanted to carry their own notes in a subsequent pregnancy (three trials, RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.03; 552 women; low quality evidence). Overall, the pooled estimate of the two trials (n = 347) that reported on the risk of notes lost or left at home was not significant (average RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.84). There was no evidence of difference for health-related behaviours (cigarette smoking and breastfeeding (moderate quality evidence)), analgesia needs during labour (low quality evidence), maternal depression, miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal deaths (moderate quality evidence). More women in the case notes group had operative deliveries (one trial, RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.12; 212 women), and caesarean sections (one trial, average RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.08; 501 women; moderate quality evidence). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe four trials are small, and not all of them reported on all outcomes. The results suggest that there are both potential benefits (increased maternal control and increased availability of antenatal records during hospital attendance) and harms (more operative deliveries). Importantly, all of the trials report that more women in the case notes group would prefer to carry their antenatal records in another pregnancy. There is insufficient evidence on health-related behaviours (smoking and breastfeeding), women's satisfaction, and clinical outcomes. It is important to emphasise that this review shows a lack of evidence of benefit rather than evidence of no benefit.

Indexed as

Health Records, PersonalPatient SatisfactionPrenatal CareBreast FeedingCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnant PeopleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSmoking

Identifiers

PMID26465209
PMCPMC7054050
OpenAlexW2129610523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.