Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26620402›Full record

Trial reportTrials2015

Improving the organisation of maternal health service delivery and optimising childbirth by increasing vaginal birth after caesarean section through enhanced women-centred care (OptiBIRTH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN10612254).

Mike Clarke, Gerard Savage, Valerie Smith, Deirdre Daly, Declan Devane, Mechthild M Gross, Susanne Grylka-Baeschlin, Patricia Healy, Sandra Morano, Jane Nicoletti and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Mike ClarkeNorthern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research, Centre for Public Health, Institute of Clinical Sciences B, Queen's University Belfast, Royal Hospitals, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BJ, UK. m.clarke@qub.ac.uk.
Gerard SavageCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. g.savage@qub.ac.uk.
Valerie SmithSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland. SMITHV1@tcd.ie.
Deirdre DalySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. dalyd8@tcd.ie.
Declan DevaneSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland. declan.devane@nuigalway.ie.
Mechthild M GrossMidwifery Research and Education Unit, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. Gross.Mechthild@mh-hannover.de.
Susanne Grylka-BaeschlinMidwifery Research and Education Unit, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. Grylka-Baeschlin.Susanne@mh-hannover.de.
Patricia HealySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland. patricia.healy@nuigalway.ie.
Sandra MoranoMedical School and Midwifery School, Genoa University, Genoa, Italy. sandra.morano@hsanmartino.it.
Jane NicolettiMedical School and Midwifery School, Genoa University, Genoa, Italy. jnicoletti@libero.it.
Cecily BegleySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. cbegley@tcd.ie.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe proportion of pregnant women who have a caesarean section shows a wide variation across Europe, and concern exists that these proportions are increasing. Much of the increase in caesarean sections in recent years is due to a cascade effect in which a woman who has had one caesarean section is much more likely to have one again if she has another baby. In some places, it has become common practice for a woman who has had a caesarean section to have this procedure again as a matter of routine. The alternative, vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC), which has been widely recommended, results in fewer undesired results or complications and is the preferred option for most women. However, VBAC rates in some countries are much lower than in other countries. METHODS/

designThe OptiBIRTH trial uses a cluster randomised design to test a specially developed approach to try to improve the VBAC rate. It will attempt to increase VBAC rates from 25 % to 40 % through increased women-centred care and women's involvement in their care. Sixteen hospitals in Germany, Ireland and Italy agreed to join the study, and each hospital was randomly allocated to be either an intervention or a control site. DISCUSSION: If the OptiBIRTH intervention succeeds in increasing VBAC rates, its application across Europe might avoid the 160,000 unnecessary caesarean sections that occur every year at an extra direct annual cost of more than €150 million.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN10612254 , registered 3 April 2013.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareMaternal Health ServicesPatient-Centered CareVaginal Birth after CesareanClinical ProtocolsCost-Benefit AnalysisCost SavingsEuropeFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansPatient SelectionPregnancyProspective StudiesResearch DesignTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26620402
PMCPMC4666170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.