ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017
A ten-year study of midwife-led care at an Austrian tertiary care center: a retrospective analysis with special consideration of perineal trauma.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management until 42 weeks (INDEX): multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Trial
- Article
- Differences in maternal and perinatal outcomes between Dutch and non-Western women in a midwife-led care setting: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Midwife-Led Versus Obstetrician-Led Perinatal Care for Low-Risk Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1.4 Million Pregnancies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Lithuanian midwives' attitudes and actions during low-risk birth.European journal of midwifery · 2023Article
- Spontaneous Perineal Trauma during Non-Operative Childbirth-Retrospective Analysis of Perineal Laceration Risk Factors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Obstetrician involvement in planned midwife-led births: a cohort study in an obstetric department of a University Hospital in Switzerland.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- Beyond the "information deficit model" - understanding vaccine-hesitant attitudes of midwives in Austria: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Effects of Cognitive Nursing Combined with Continuous Nursing on Postpartum Mental State and Rehabilitation.BioMed research international · 2021Article
- Maternal and neonatal outcome of births planned in alongside midwifery units: a cohort study from a tertiary center in Germany.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Are women attending a midwifery-led birthing center at increased risk of anal sphincter injury?International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Article
- Utility of the 5-Minute Apgar Score as a Research Endpoint.American journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
- Caesarean section epidemic: Tackling the rise of unnecessary cuts.European journal of midwifery · 2019Article
- Associations with perineal trauma during childbirth at home and in health facilities in indigenous municipalities in southern Mexico: a cross-sectional cluster survey.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn contrast to other countries, Austria rarely offers alternative models to medical led-care. In an attempt to improve the facilities, a midwife-led care service was incorporated within the Department of Obstetrics and Fetomaternal Medicine. The aim of the present study was to analyze the maternal and neonatal outcomes of this approach.
methodsOver a 10-years period, a total of 2123 low-risk women receiving midwife-led care were studied. Among these women, 148 required obstetric referral. Age- and parity matched low-risk women with spontaneous vaginal birth overseen by an obstetrician-led team were used as controls to ensure comparability of data.
resultsMidwife-led care management demonstrated a significant decrease in interventions, including oxytocin use (p < 0.001), medical pain relief (p < 0.001), and artificial rupture of membranes (ARM) (p < 0.01) as well as fewer episiotomies (p < 0.001), as compared with obstetrician-led care. Moreover, no negative effects on maternal or neonatal outcomes were observed. The mean length of the second stage of labor, rate of perineal laceration and APGAR scores did not differ significantly between the study groups (p > 0.05). Maternal age (p < 0.01), head diameter (p < 0.001), birth weight (p < 0.001) and the absence of midwife-led care (p < 0.05) were independent risk factors for perineal trauma. The overall referral rate was low (7%) and was most commonly caused by pathologic cardiotocography (CTG) and prolonged first- and second-stage of labor. Most referred mothers nevertheless had spontaneous deliveries (77%), and there were low rates of vaginal operative deliveries and cesarean sections (vacuum extraction, 16%; cesarean section, 7%).
conclusionsThe present study confirmed that midwife-led care confers important benefits and causes no adverse outcomes for mother and child. The favorable obstetrical outcome clearly highlights the importance of the selection of obstetric care, on the basis of previous risk assessment. We therefore fully support the recommendation that midwife-led care be offered to all low-risk women and that mothers should be encouraged to use this option. However, to increase the numbers of midwife-led care deliveries in Austria in the future, it will be necessary to expand this care model and to establish new midwife-led care units within hospital facilities.
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.