Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26911667›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2016

A cross-sectional survey of policies guiding second stage labor in urban Japanese hospitals, clinics and midwifery birth centers.

Kaori Baba, Yaeko Kataoka, Kaori Nakayama, Yukari Yaju, Shigeko Horiuchi, Hiromi Eto

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. The condemned fundal pressure maneuver: time to reconsider?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kaori BabaSt. Luke's International University, Tokyo, Japan. 13DN001-ts@slcn.ac.jp.
Yaeko KataokaSt. Luke's International University, Tokyo, Japan.
Kaori NakayamaSt. Luke's International University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yukari YajuSt. Luke's International University, Tokyo, Japan.
Shigeko HoriuchiSt. Luke's International University, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiromi EtoNagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan.
St. Luke's International University · JPNagasaki University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Japan Academy of Midwifery developed and disseminated the '2012 Evidence-based Guidelines for Midwifery Care (Guidelines for Midwives)' for low-risk births to achieve a more uniform standard of care during childbirth in Japan. The objective of this study was to cross-sectional survey policy implementation regarding care during the second stage of labor at Japanese hospitals, clinics, and midwifery birth centers, and to compare those policies with the recommendations in Guidelines for Midwives.

methodsThis study was conducted in the four major urbanized areas (e.g. Tokyo) of the Kanto region of Japan. Respondents were chiefs of the institutions (obstetricians/midwives), nurse administrators (including midwives) of the obstetrical departments, or other nurse/midwives who were well versed in the routine care of the targeted institutions. The Guidelines implementation questionnaire comprised 12 items. Data was collected from October 2010 to July 2011.

resultsThe overall response was 255 of the 684 institutions (37%). Of the total responses 46% were hospitals, 26% were clinics and 28% were midwifery birth centers. Few institutions reported perineal massage education for 'almost all cases'. Using 'active birth' were all midwifery birth centers, 56% hospitals and 32% clinics. Few institutions used water births. The majority of hospitals (73%) and clinics (80%) but a minority (39%) of midwifery birth centers reported 'not implemented' about applying warm compress to the perineum. Few midwifery birth centers (10%) and more hospitals (38%) and clinics (50%) had a policy for valsalva as routine care. Many hospitals (90%) and clinics (88%) and fewer midwifery birth centers (54%) offered hands-on technique to provide perineal support during birth. A majority of institutions used antiseptic solution for perineal disinfection. Few institutions routinely used episiotomies for multiparas, however routine use for primiparas was slightly more in hospitals (21%) and clinics (25%). All respondents used fundal pressure as consistent with guidelines. Not many institutions implemented the hands and knees position for correcting fetal abnormal rotation.

conclusionsThis survey has provided new information about the policies instituted in three types of institutions guiding second stage labor in four metropolitan areas of Japan. There existed considerable differences among institutions' practice. There were also many gaps between reported policies and evidence-based Guidelines for Midwives, therefore new strategies are needed in Japan to realign institution's care policies with evidenced based guidelines.

Indexed as

Labor Stage, SecondBirthing CentersCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHealth Plan ImplementationHospitals, UrbanHumansJapanMidwiferyPractice Guidelines as TopicPregnancySurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26911667
PMCPMC4766668
OpenAlexW2281105072

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.