Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33817626›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2021

Does giving birth in a "birth environment room" versus a standard birth room lower augmentation of labor? - Results from a randomized controlled trial.

Iben Prentow Lorentzen, Charlotte S Andersen, Henriette Svenstrup Jensen, Ann Fogsgaard, Maralyn Foureur, Finn Friis Lauszus, Ellen Aagaard Nohr

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Iben Prentow LorentzenDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Gl. Landevej 61, 7400, Herning, Denmark.
Charlotte S AndersenDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Gl. Landevej 61, 7400, Herning, Denmark.
Henriette Svenstrup JensenDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Gl. Landevej 61, 7400, Herning, Denmark.
Ann FogsgaardDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Gl. Landevej 61, 7400, Herning, Denmark.
Maralyn FoureurNursing and Midwifery Research Centre, Hunter New England Health and University of Newcastle, NSW, 2300, Australia.
Finn Friis LauszusDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Gl. Landevej 61, 7400, Herning, Denmark.
Ellen Aagaard NohrResearch Unit for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense C, Denmark.
Regionshospitalet Herning · DKHunter New England Local Health District · AUUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn the last decade, there has been an increased interest in exploring the impact of the physical birth environment on midwifery practice and women's birth experiences. This study is based on the hypothesis that the environment for birth needs greater attention to improve some of the existing challenges in modern obstetric practice, for example the increasing use of augmentation and number of interventions during delivery. STUDY

designA randomized controlled trial was carried out to study the effect of giving birth in a specially designed "birth environment room" on the use of augmentation during labor. The study took place at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Herning Hospital, Denmark and included 680 nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term with a fetus in cephalic presentation. Women were randomly allocated to either the "birth environment room" or a standard birth room. The primary outcome was augmentation of labor by use of oxytocin. Secondary outcomes were duration of labor, use of pharmacological pain relief, and mode of birth. Differences were estimated as relative risks (RR) and presented with 95% confidence intervals.

resultsNo difference was found on the primary outcome, augmentation of labor (29.1% in the "birth environment room" versus 30.6% in the standard room, RR 0.97; 0.89-1.08). More women in the "birth environment room" used the bathtub (60.6% versus 52.4%, RR 1.18; 1.02-1.37), whereas a tendency to lower use of epidural analgesia (22.6% versus 28.2%) did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.87; 0.74-1.02). The chance of an uncomplicated birth was almost similar in the two groups (70.6% in the "birth environment room" versus 72.6% in the standard room, RR 0.97; 0.88-1.07) as were duration of labor (mean 7.9 hours in both groups).

conclusionsBirthing in a specially designed physical birth environment did not lower use of oxytocin for augmentation of labor. Neither did it have any effect on duration of labor, use of pharmacological pain relief, and chance of birthing without complications. We recommend that future trials are conducted in birth units with greater improvement potentials.

Indexed as

Birth environmentBirth experienceBirth outcomeBirth room designBirth unit designOxytocin

Identifiers

PMID33817626
PMCPMC8010388
OpenAlexW3137463375

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.