SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015
Specialised antenatal clinics for women with a multiple pregnancy for improving maternal and infant outcomes.
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 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaginal progesterone for preventing preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in twin gestations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical practice guidelines for the antenatal management of dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Pooled it
- Appraisal of systematic reviews on interventions for postpartum depression: systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions during pregnancy to prevent preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Interventions for the prevention of spontaneous preterm birth: a scoping review of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Supporting multiple birth families: Perceptions and experiences of health visitors.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.) · 2022Article
- Perinatal outcomes in twin pregnancies complicated by maternal morbidity: evidence from the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRegular antenatal care for women with a multiple pregnancy is accepted practice, and while most women have an increase in the number of antenatal visits, there is no consensus as to what constitutes optimal care. 'Specialised' antenatal clinics have been advocated as a way of improving outcomes for women and their infants.
objectivesTo assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of 'specialised' antenatal clinics compared with 'standard' antenatal care for women with a multiple pregnancy. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials with reported data that compared outcomes in mothers and babies with a multiple pregnancy who received antenatal care specifically designed for women with a multiple pregnancy (as defined by the trial authors) with outcomes in controls who received 'standard' antenatal care (as defined by the trial authors). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two of the review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. Both review authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We graded the quality of the evidence using GRADEpro software. MAIN
resultsFindings were based on the results of a single study with some design limitations.Data were available from one study involving 162 women with a multiple pregnancy. For the only reported primary outcome, perinatal mortality, we are uncertain whether specialised antenatal clinics makes any difference compared to standard care (risk ratio (RR) 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 4.03; 324 infants, very low quality evidence). Women receiving specialised antenatal care were significantly more likely to birth by caesarean section (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.81; 162 women, moderate quality evidence). Data were not reported in the study on the following primary outcomes: small-for-gestational age, very preterm birth or maternal death. There were no differences identified between specialised antenatal care and standard care for other secondary outcomes examined: postnatal depression (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.20; 133 women, very low quality evidence), breastfeeding (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.68; 123 women, very low quality evidence), stillbirth (RR 0.68; 0.12 to 4.04) or neonatal death (RR 2.05; 95% CI 0.19 to 22.39) (324 infants). AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is currently limited information available from randomised controlled trials to assess the role of 'specialised' antenatal clinics for women with a multiple pregnancy compared with 'standard' antenatal care in improving maternal and infant health outcomes. The value of 'specialised' multiple pregnancy clinics in improving health outcomes for women and their infants requires evaluation in appropriately powered and designed randomised controlled trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.