Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28882928›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Psychological and support interventions to reduce levels of stress, anxiety or depression on women's subsequent pregnancy with a history of miscarriage: an empty systematic review.

Indra San Lazaro Campillo, Sarah Meaney, Karen McNamara, Keelin O'Donoghue

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 113 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The Pregnancy Loss Review: what does it mean for general practice?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Indra San Lazaro CampilloPregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork - National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7281-8424
Sarah MeaneyPregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork - National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland.
Karen McNamaraPregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork - National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland.
Keelin O'DonoghuePregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork - National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland.
National University of Ireland · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of interventions to reduce stress in pregnant women with a history of miscarriage.

designA systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCE: A total of 13 medical, psychological and social electronic databases were searched from January 1995 to April 2016 including PUBMED, CENTRAL, Web of Science and EMBASE. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This review focused on women in their subsequent pregnancy following miscarriage. All published RCTs which assessed the effect of non-medical interventions such as counselling or support interventions on psychological and mental health outcomes such as stress, anxiety or depression when compared with a control group were included. Stress, anxiety or depression had to be measured at least preintervention and postintervention.

resultsThis systematic review found no RCT which met our initial inclusion criteria. Of the 4140 titles screened, 17 RCTs were identified. All of them were excluded. One RCT, which implemented a caring-based intervention, included pregnant women in their subsequent pregnancy; however, miscarriage was analysed as a composite variable among other pregnancy losses such as stillbirth and neonatal death. Levels of perceived stress were measured by four RCTs. Different types of non-medical interventions, time of follow-up and small sample sizes were found.

conclusionCohort studies and RCTs in non-pregnant women suggest that support and psychological interventions may improve pregnant women's psychological well-being after miscarriage. This improvement may reduce adverse pregnancy-related outcomes in subsequent pregnancies. However, this review found no RCTs which met our criteria. There is a need for targeted RCTs that can provide reliable and conclusive results to determine effective interventions for this vulnerable group.

Indexed as

PsychotherapySocial SupportAbortion, SpontaneousAnxietyCounselingDepressionFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnant PeopleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStress, Psychological

Identifiers

PMID28882928
PMCPMC5595175
OpenAlexW2752326192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.