ArticlePloS one2018
Outcomes for women with BMI>35kg/m2 admitted for labour care to alongside midwifery units in the UK: A national prospective cohort study using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS).
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Birth "outside of guidance"-An exploration of a Birth Choices Clinic in the United Kingdom.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Neonatal admission and mortality in babies born in UK alongside midwifery units: a national population-based case-control study using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS).Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2021Article
- Birth Outcomes of Women with Obesity Enrolled for Care at Freestanding Birth Centers in the United States.Journal of midwifery & women's health · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe and compare outcomes in severely obese (body mass index (BMI)>35kg/m2) women and other women admitted to alongside (co-located) midwifery units (AMU) in the United Kingdom.
methodsWe carried out a national prospective cohort study using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS) in all 122 AMUs in the UK. We identified and collected data about 1122 severely obese women admitted to an AMU, 1st January-31st December 2016, and 1949 comparison women (BMI≤35kg/m2), matched on time of admission, and used Poisson regression to calculate relative risks adjusted for maternal characteristics.
results92% of the severely obese cohort had BMI 35.1-40kg/m2. Severely obese multiparous women were no more likely than comparison women to experience the composite primary outcome (one or more of: augmentation, instrumental birth, Caesarean, maternal blood transfusion, 3rd/4th degree tear, maternal admission to higher level care) (5.6% vs. 8.1%, aRR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.44-1.07). For severely obese nulliparous women we found a non-significant 14% increased risk of the primary outcome (37.6% vs 34.8%, aRR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.97-1.33). High proportions of severely obese women had a 'straightforward vaginal birth' (nulliparous 67.9%; multiparous 96.3%). Severely obese women were more likely than comparison women to have an intrapartum Casearean section, but Caesarean section rates were low and the absolute difference small (4.7% vs 4.1%; aRR = 1.62; 95% CI 1.02-2.57). In nulliparous women, severely obese women were more likely to have an urgent Caesarean section (12.2% vs. 6.5%, aRR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.05-3.08), or a PPH≥1500ml (5.1% vs. 1.7%, aRR = 3.01, 95% CI 1.24-7.31).
conclusionsWe found no evidence of significantly increased risk associated with planning birth in an AMU for carefully selected multiparous severely obese women, with BMI 35.1-40kg/m2. Severely obese nulliparous women have a potential increased risk of having a more urgent Caesarean section or severe PPH compared with other women admitted to AMUs.
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.