Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26545291›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Specialised antenatal clinics for women with a multiple pregnancy for improving maternal and infant outcomes.

Jodie M Dodd, Therese Dowswell, Caroline A Crowther

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic 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 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jodie M DoddSchool of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Adelaide, Women's and Children's Hospital, 72 King William Road, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 5006.
Therese Dowswell
Caroline A Crowther
University of Auckland · NZUniversity of Liverpool · GBWomen's and Children's Health Network · AU

Funding

Department of Health 13/89/05
6 · The paper itself

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

Infant WelfareMaternal WelfarePregnancy, MultiplePregnancy OutcomeCesarean SectionFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPerinatal MortalityPregnancyPregnancy, TwinPrenatal CareRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID26545291
PMCPMC8536469
OpenAlexW1814725271

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.