ArticlePloS one2024
Food and fluid intake during labor in maternity wards: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the 1940s, aspiration of stomach contents was recognized as a serious problem during labor, which is why fluid and food restriction was adopted for women who would undergo general anesthesia. Currently, the practice of generalized food restriction is a routine that is being discontinued. This review aims to map the evidence on the effects of the intake of foods, supplements and drinks in women on labor outcomes. To that end, documents investigating this topic in pregnant women admitted for uncomplicated deliveries in maternity wards, published from 2013 onwards, will be assessed. This interval was defined based on the publication by Singata et al., who carried out a systematic review on the benefits and harms of oral fluid intake or food restriction during labor. The scoping review methods of the JBI and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA) were followed. Firstly, a preliminary search was carried out to identify the existence of similar scoping reviews or protocols, as well as the keywords and MeSH descriptors in the titles and abstracts, with a view to developing a complete search strategy. Subsequently, a search will be carried out in the Cochrane Library, Medline/PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. The search strategy will be adapted for each of these databases. Finally, a reverse search will be carried out using the references of the included studies. The obtained documents will be imported into Rayyan for duplicate detection and removal. Two independent reviewers will read the titles and abstracts, observing the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data extraction from each included study will be carried out independently by two reviewers, using the extraction form created for this purpose. In order to report results, we will follow the PRISMA checklist and report descriptive statistics and a narrative summary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.