Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31746028›Full record

ArticleBirth (Berkeley, Calif.)2020

The "Cocoon," first alongside midwifery-led unit within a Belgian hospital: Comparison of the maternal and neonatal outcomes with the standard obstetric unit over 2 years.

Karine Welffens, Sara Derisbourg, Elena Costa, Yvon Englert, Axelle Pintiaux, Michèle Warnimont, Christine Kirkpatrick, Pierre Buekens, Caroline Daelemans

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Birth (Berkeley, Calif.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Karine WelffensDepartement of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium.
Sara DerisbourgDepartement of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1097-5042
Elena CostaDepartement of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-4044-9799
Yvon EnglertDepartement of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium.
Axelle PintiauxDepartement of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium.
Michèle WarnimontDepartement of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium.
Christine KirkpatrickDepartement of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium.
Pierre BuekensDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana.ORCID 0000-0002-4294-8559
Caroline DaelemansDepartement of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium.
Erasmus Hospital · BETulane University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOur aim was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with a low-risk pregnancy attending the "Cocoon," an alongside midwifery-led birth center and care pathway, with women with a low-risk pregnancy attending the traditional care pathway in a tertiary care hospital in Belgium.

methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with a low-risk pregnancy who chose to adhere to the Cocoon pathway of care (n = 590) and women with a low-risk pregnancy who chose the traditional pathway of care (n = 394) from March 1, 2014, to February 29, 2016. We performed all analyses using an intention-to-treat approach.

resultsIn this setting, the cesarean birth rate was 10.3% compared with 16.0% in the traditional care pathway (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] 0.42 [95% CI 0.25-0.69]), the induction rate was 16.3% compared with 30.5% (0.46 [0.30-0.69]), the epidural analgesia rate was 24.9% compared with 59.1% (0.15 [0.09-0.22]), and the episiotomy rate was 6.8% compared with 14.5% (0.31 [0.17-0.56]). There was no increase in adverse neonatal outcomes. Intrapartum and postpartum transfer rates to the traditional pathway of care were 21.1% and 7.1%, respectively.

conclusionsWomen planning their births in the midwifery-led unit, the Cocoon, experienced fewer interventions with no increase in adverse neonatal outcomes. Our study gives initial support for the introduction of similar midwifery-led care pathways in other hospitals in Belgium.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBelgiumBirthing CentersDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornLogistic ModelsMidwiferyObstetric Labor ComplicationsParityPerinatal CarePregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRetrospective Studiesalongside midwifery-led birth unitlow-risk pregnancymaternal outcomesneonatal outcomes

Identifiers

PMID31746028
PMCPMC7065252
OpenAlexW2990122387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.