Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29605891›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of epidemiology2018

Antenatal non-medical risk assessment and care pathways to improve pregnancy outcomes: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Jacqueline Lagendijk, Amber A Vos, Loes C M Bertens, Semiha Denktas, Gouke J Bonsel, Ewout W Steyerberg, Jasper V Been, Eric A P Steegers

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Jacqueline LagendijkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. j.lagendijk.2@erasmusmc.nl.
Amber A VosDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Loes C M BertensDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Semiha DenktasDepartment of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University College, Faculty of Social & Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Nieuwemarkt 1A, 3011 HP, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gouke J BonselDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85090, 3508 AB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jasper V BeenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Eric A P SteegersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports 318 804
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social deprivation negatively affects health outcomes but receives little attention in obstetric risk selection. We investigated whether a combination of (1) risk assessment focused on non-medical risk factors, lifestyle factors, and medical risk factors, with (2) subsequent institution of risk-specific care pathways, and (3) multidisciplinary consultation between care providers from the curative and the public health sector reduced adverse pregnancy outcomes among women in selected urban areas in the Netherlands. We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial in 14 urban municipalities across the Netherlands. Prior to the randomisation, municipalities were ranked and paired according to their expected proportion of pregnant women at risk for adverse outcomes at birth. The primary outcome was delivery of a preterm and/or small for gestational age (SGA) baby, analysed with multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression analysis adjusting for clustering and individual baseline characteristics. A total of 33 community midwife practices and nine hospitals participated throughout the study. Data from 4302 participants was included in the Intention To Treat (ITT) analysis. The intervention had no demonstrable impact on the primary outcome: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.17 (95% CI 0.84-1.63). Among the secondary outcomes, the intervention improved the detection of threatening preterm delivery and fetal growth restriction during pregnancy [aOR 1.27 (95% CI 1.01-1.61)]. Implementation of additional non-medical risk assessment and preventive strategies into general practices is feasible but did not decrease the incidence of preterm and/or SGA birth in the index pregnancy in deprived urban areas.Trial registration Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR-3367).

Indexed as

Critical PathwaysPregnancy OutcomePrenatal CareAdultCluster AnalysisFemaleHumansPregnancyRisk AssessmentYoung AdultEpidemiologyPregnancyPreventionRisk assessmentRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID29605891
PMCPMC5995981

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.