Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29237472›Full record

SynthesisReproductive health2017

Supply kits for antenatal and childbirth care: a systematic review.

Alicia Aleman, Giselle Tomasso, María Luisa Cafferata, Mercedes Colomar, Ana Pilar Betran

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Improving obstetric care in low-resource settings.Case reports in women's health · 2022
    Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Alicia AlemanMontevideo Clinical and Research Unit, Avda Italia s/n, Hospital de Clinical, 11600, Montevideo, Uruguay. aaleman@unicem-web.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9247-1031
Giselle TomassoMontevideo Clinical and Research Unit, Avda Italia s/n, Hospital de Clinical, 11600, Montevideo, Uruguay.
María Luisa CafferataMontevideo Clinical and Research Unit, Avda Italia s/n, Hospital de Clinical, 11600, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Mercedes ColomarMontevideo Clinical and Research Unit, Avda Italia s/n, Hospital de Clinical, 11600, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Ana Pilar BetranUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIt is critical to increase the uptake of interventions proven to be effective to improve maternal and perinatal outcomes. Supply kits have been suggested to be a feasible strategy designed to ensure timely availability and effective follow-up of care.

objectiveWe conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence on the uptake, effectiveness and safety of supply kits for maternal care. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, Campbell Collaboration, Lilacs, Embase and unpublished studies were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies that reported the efficacy, safety and use of supply kits for maternal healthcare were eligible. Participants were pregnant women or in childbirth. Supply kits were defined as a collection of medicines, supplies or instruments packaged together with the aim of conducting a healthcare task. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently performed the screening, data extraction, and methodological and quality assessment. MAIN

results24 studies were included: 4 of them were systematic reviews and 20 primary studies. Eighteen studies evaluated a so-called "clean delivery kit". In all but two studies, the kits were used by more than half of the participants. A meta-analysis was deemed inappropriate due to the heterogeneity in study design, in the components of the interventions implemented, in the content of the kits, and in outcomes. Nine studies assessed neonatal outcomes and found statistically significant reductions in cord infection, sepsis and tetanus-related mortality in the intervention group. Three studies showed evidence of reduced neonatal mortality (OR 0.52, 0.60 and 0.71) with statistically significant confidence intervals in all cases. Four studies reported odd ratios for maternal mortality, but only one showed evidence of a statistically significant decrease in this outcome but it was ascribed to hand washing prior to childbirth and not with the use of kits.

conclusionThis review suggests potential benefits in the use of supply kits to improve maternal and neonatal health. However, the observational nature of the studies, the heterogeneity and the use of kits incorporated within complex interventions limit the interpretation of the findings.

Indexed as

Equipment and Supplies, HospitalFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaternal Health ServicesPregnancyPrenatal CareChildbirthClean delivery kitsMaternal mortalityNeonatal mortalityPregnancySupply kits

Identifiers

PMID29237472
PMCPMC5729253

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.