Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37715118›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023

Child and maternal benefits and risks of caseload midwifery - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lotta Wassén, Beata Borgström Bolmsjö, Sophia Frantz, Anna Hagman, Marie Lindroth, Christine Rubertsson, Annika Strandell, Therese Svanberg, Anna Wessberg, Susanna M Wallerstedt

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

10 authors.

Lotta WassénDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Beata Borgström BolmsjöDepartment Research and education, HTA syd, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Sophia FrantzDepartment Research and education, HTA syd, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Anna HagmanRegional Healthcare, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Marie LindrothMidwifery Clinic in Primary Care, Region Skåne, Malmö, Sweden.
Christine RubertssonDepartment of Health Science, Medical faculty, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Annika StrandellDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Therese SvanbergMedical library, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anna WessbergDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Susanna M WallerstedtHTA-centrum, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden. susanna.wallerstedt@pharm.gu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has been reported that caseload midwifery, which implies continuity of midwifery care during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period, improves the outcomes for the mother and child. The aim of this study was to review benefits and risks of caseload midwifery, compared with standard care comparable to the Swedish setting where the same midwife usually provides antenatal care and the checkup postnatally, but does not assist during birth and the first week postpartum.

methodsMedline, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane Library were searched (Nov 4th, 2021) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Retrieved articles were assessed and pooled risk ratios calculated when possible, using random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to GRADE.

resultsIn all, 7,594 patients in eight RCTs were included, whereof five RCTs without major risk of bias, including 5,583 patients, formed the basis for the conclusions. There was moderate certainty of evidence for little or no difference regarding the risk of Apgar ≤ 7 at 5 min, instrumental birth, and preterm birth. There was low certainty of evidence for little or no difference regarding the risk of perinatal mortality, neonatal intensive care, perineal tear, bleeding, and acute caesarean section. Caseload midwifery may reduce the overall risk of caesarean section. Regarding breastfeeding after hospital discharge, maternal mortality, maternal morbidity, health-related quality of life, postpartum depression, health care experience/satisfaction and confidence, available studies did not allow conclusions (very low certainty of evidence). For severe child morbidity and Apgar ≤ 4 at 5 min, there was no literature available.

conclusionsWhen caseload midwifery was compared with models of care that resembles the Swedish one, little or no difference was found for several critical and important child and maternal outcomes with low-moderate certainty of evidence, but the risk of caesarean section may be reduced. For several outcomes, including critical and important ones, studies were lacking, or the certainty of evidence was very low. RCTs in relevant settings are therefore required.

Indexed as

MidwiferyCesarean SectionChildDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMothersPregnancyRisk AssessmentCare modelCaseload midwiferyGRADEMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37715118
PMCPMC10504769

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.