Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27500348›Full record

SynthesisObstetrics and gynecology2016

Group Prenatal Care Compared With Traditional Prenatal Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Ebony B Carter, Lorene A Temming, Jennifer Akin, Susan Fowler, George A Macones, Graham A Colditz, Methodius G Tuuli

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Group Medical Care: A Systematic Review of Health Service Performance.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026
    Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ebony B CarterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Lorene A Temming
Jennifer Akin
Susan Fowler
George A Macones
Graham A Colditz
Methodius G Tuuli

Funding

Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
Washington University Center for Diabetes Translation Research P30DK092950 · NIDDK · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Ross C Brownson, Debra Haire-Joshu · 2011 to 2026
$11.7M
Reproductive Epidemiology Training Program at Washington University in St. LouisT32HD055172 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MADDEN, TESSA · 2009 to 2018
$2.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD055172NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092950
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate the effect of group prenatal care on perinatal outcomes compared with traditional prenatal care. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE through PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health literature, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing group care with traditional prenatal care. The primary outcome was preterm birth. Secondary outcomes were low birth weight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and breastfeeding initiation. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q test and I statistic. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences were calculated using random-effects models. TABULATIONS, INTEGRATION, AND

resultsFour randomized controlled trials and 10 observational studies met inclusion criteria. The rate of preterm birth was not significantly different with group care compared with traditional care (11 studies: pooled rates 7.9% compared with 9.3%, pooled RR 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.09). Group care was associated with a decreased rate of low birth weight overall (nine studies: pooled rate 7.5% group care compared with 9.5% traditional care; pooled RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.96), but not among randomized controlled trials (four studies: 7.9% group care compared with 8.7% traditional care, pooled RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.16). There were no significant differences in neonatal intensive care unit admission or breastfeeding initiation.

conclusionAvailable data suggest that women who participate in group care have similar rates of preterm birth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and breastfeeding.

Indexed as

Pregnancy OutcomeAdultBreast FeedingFemaleHumansInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, NewbornIntensive Care Units, NeonatalObservational Studies as TopicPregnancyPremature BirthPrenatal CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27500348
PMCPMC4993643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.