Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34706693›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021

Obstetrician involvement in planned midwife-led births: a cohort study in an obstetric department of a University Hospital in Switzerland.

Ann-Katrin Morr, Nicole Malah, Andrea Manuela Messer, Annina Etter, Martin Mueller, Luigi Raio, Daniel Surbek

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Impact of Obesity on Childbirth Expectations.Journal of midwifery & women's health
    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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ann-Katrin MorrDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. ann-katrin.morr@insel.ch.
Nicole MalahDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Andrea Manuela MesserDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Annina EtterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Martin MuellerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Luigi RaioDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Daniel SurbekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Bern · CHUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthy women with low risk singleton pregnancies are offered a midwife-led birth model at our department. Exclusion criteria for midwife-led births include a range of abnormalities in medical history and during the course of pregnancy. In case of complications before, during or after labor and birth, an obstetrician is involved. The purpose of this study was 1) to evaluate the frequency of and reasons for secondary obstetrician involvement in planned midwife-led births and 2) to assess the maternal and neonatal outcome.

methodsWe analyzed a cohort of planned midwife-led births during a 14 years period (2006-2019). Evaluation included a comparison between midwife-led births with or without secondary obstetrician involvement, regarding maternal characteristics, birth mode, and maternal and neonatal outcome. Statistical analysis was performed by unpaired t-tests and Chi-square tests.

resultsIn total, there were 532 intended midwife-led births between 2006 and 2019 (2.6% of all births during this time-period at the department). Among these, 302 (57%) women had spontaneous vaginal births as midwife-led births. In the remaining 230 (43%) births, obstetricians were involved: 62% of women with obstetrician involvement had spontaneous vaginal births, 25% instrumental vaginal births and 13% caesarean sections. Overall, the caesarean section rate was 5.6% in the whole cohort of women with intended midwife-led births. Reasons for obstetrician involvement primarily included necessity for labor induction, abnormal fetal heart rate monitoring, thick meconium-stained amniotic fluid, prolonged first or second stage of labor, desire for epidural analgesia, obstetrical anal sphincter injuries, retention of placenta and postpartum hemorrhage. There was a significantly higher rate of primiparous women in the group with obstetrician involvement. Arterial umbilical cord pH < 7.10 occurred significantly more often in the group with obstetrician involvement, while 5' Apgar score < 7 did not differ significantly. The overall transfer rate of newborns to neonatal intensive care unit was low (1.3%).

conclusionA midwife-led birth in our setting is a safe alternative to a primarily obstetrician-led birth, provided that selection criteria are being followed and prompt obstetrician involvement is available in case of abnormal course of labor and birth or postpartum complications.

Indexed as

ParturitionPhysiciansAdultCohort StudiesDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHospitals, UniversityHumansMidwiferyObstetric Labor ComplicationsObstetrics and Gynecology Department, HospitalPregnancyRetrospective StudiesSwitzerlandBirth modesMaternal and neonatal outcomeMidwife-led birth careSecondary obstetrician involvement

Identifiers

PMID34706693
PMCPMC8549258
OpenAlexW3209713564

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.