Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33771115›Full record

Observational studyBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021

Waterbirth: a national retrospective cohort study of factors associated with its use among women in England.

H Aughey, J Jardine, N Moitt, K Fearon, J Hawdon, D Pasupathy, I Urganci, NMPA Project Team, T Harris

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Alternate Birth Strategies.International journal of women's health · 2023
    Review
  15. Waterbirth: current knowledge and medico-legal issues.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

H Aughey *National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA), RCOG Centre for Quality Improvement and Clinical Audit, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 10 -18 Union Street, London, SE1 1SZ, UK. harriet.aughey@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8900-1613
J Jardine *National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA), RCOG Centre for Quality Improvement and Clinical Audit, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 10 -18 Union Street, London, SE1 1SZ, UK.
N MoittPopulation Health Analytics, Cerner, London, UK.
K FearonCentre for Reproduction Research, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.
J HawdonNational Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA), RCOG Centre for Quality Improvement and Clinical Audit, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 10 -18 Union Street, London, SE1 1SZ, UK.
D PasupathyNational Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA), RCOG Centre for Quality Improvement and Clinical Audit, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 10 -18 Union Street, London, SE1 1SZ, UK.
I UrganciNational Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA), RCOG Centre for Quality Improvement and Clinical Audit, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 10 -18 Union Street, London, SE1 1SZ, UK.
NMPA Project Team
T HarrisNational Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA), RCOG Centre for Quality Improvement and Clinical Audit, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 10 -18 Union Street, London, SE1 1SZ, UK.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists · GBDe Montfort University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWaterbirth is widely available in English maternity settings for women who are not at increased risk of complications during labour. Immersion in water during labour is associated with a number of maternal benefits. However for birth in water the situation is less clear, with conclusive evidence on safety lacking and little known about the characteristics of women who give birth in water. This retrospective cohort study uses electronic data routinely collected in the course of maternity care in England in 2015-16 to describe the proportion of births recorded as having occurred in water, the characteristics of women who experienced waterbirth and the odds of key maternal and neonatal complications associated with giving birth in water.

methodsData were obtained from three population level electronic datasets linked together for the purposes of a national audit of maternity care. The study cohort included women who had no risk factors requiring them to give birth in an obstetric unit according to national guidelines. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine maternal (postpartum haemorrhage of 1500mls or more, obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI)) and neonatal (Apgar score less than 7, neonatal unit admission) outcomes associated with waterbirth.

results46,088 low and intermediate risk singleton term spontaneous vaginal births in 35 NHS Trusts in England were included in the analysis cohort. Of these 6264 (13.6%) were recorded as having occurred in water. Waterbirth was more likely in older women up to the age of 40 (adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) for age group 35-39 1.27, 95% confidence interval (1.15,1.41)) and less common in women under 25 (adjOR 18-24 0.76 (0.70, 0.82)), those of higher parity (parity ≥3 adjOR 0.56 (0.47,0.66)) or who were obese (BMI 30-34.9 adjOR 0.77 (0.70,0.85)). Waterbirth was also less likely in black (adjOR 0.42 (0.36, 0.51)) and Asian (adjOR 0.26 (0.23,0.30)) women and in those from areas of increased socioeconomic deprivation (most affluent versus least affluent areas adjOR 0.47 (0.43, 0.52)). There was no association between delivery in water and low Apgar score (adjOR 0.95 (0.66,1.36)) or incidence of OASI (adjOR 1.00 (0.86,1.16)). There was an association between waterbirth and reduced incidence of postpartum haemorrhage (adjOR 0.68 (0.51,0.90)) and neonatal unit admission (adjOR 0.65 (0.53,0.78)).

conclusionsIn this large observational cohort study, there was no association between waterbirth and specific adverse outcomes for either the mother or the baby. There was evidence that white women from higher socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to be recorded as giving birth in water. Maternity services should focus on ensuring equitable access to waterbirth.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAge FactorsApgar ScoreBathsEnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, NewbornMaternal Health ServicesNatural ChildbirthPostpartum HemorrhagePregnancyRetrospective StudiesChildbirthLabour careWaterbirth

Identifiers

PMID33771115
PMCPMC8004456
OpenAlexW3139178567

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.