ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Comparison between continuing midwifery care and standard maternity care in vaginal birth after cesarean.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Adjunct clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean rates: systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Pooled it
- Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Examining provider practice-level disparities in delivery outcomes among patients with a history of Cesarean Delivery.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Vaginal Birth at Term - Part 1. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/083, December 2020).Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2022Article
- Women's experiences of planning a vaginal birth after caesarean in different models of maternity care in Australia.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- A narrative analysis of women's experiences of planning a vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) in Australia using critical feminist theory.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether continuing midwifery care has more benefits than standard maternity care in vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC).
methodsThis study was conducted on women in labour who had history of previous cesarean section and received vaginal birth in obstetrical department of our hospital from May 2013 to November 2014. The included patients were divided randomly into observation group and control group. The women in labour allocated to the observation group received continuing midwifery care, and those to control group received standard maternity care in all the stages of labour. The duration of labor stage together with the rate of fetal distress, neonatal asphyxia, vaginal birth and postpartum bleeding were compared between the two groups.
resultsNinety-six participants were included in the current study, forty-eight in each group. The length of labor was significantly longer (p<0.05), the vaginal birth rate was significantly lower (p<0.05) and the postpartum hemorrhage rate was significantly higher (p<0.05) in the control group than the observation group. In addition, the rate of fetal distress and neonatal asphyxia were higher in the control group, but there was no significant difference between the two groups (p>0.05).
conclusionThe continuing midwifery care has more benefits than the standard maternity care in vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC).
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.