ReviewEuropean journal of midwifery2026
Midwife-led care versus obstetrician-led care for childbearing women in early labor: A systematic review.
Review in European journal of midwifery, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWomen admitted to the hospital early in labor face an increased intrapartum intervention rate, possibly resulting in negative obstetric outcomes. It is well documented that women receiving midwife-led care receive fewer unnecessary medical interventions. However, the impact of midwife-led care during early labor remains poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of midwife-led care compared to obstetrician-led care regarding medical interventions during early labor.
methodsA systematic review of literature published until June 2024 was performed in PubMed, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library following Cochrane guidelines. PICO criteria included the keywords pregnant women, midwife-led care, obstetrician-led care and medical interventions during early labor. Quality was assessed using the RoB 2-tool and the ROBINS-I-tool. Data were extracted by using a purposively designed extraction template and then analyzed descriptively.
resultsOf 1057 identified studies, four studies were eligible and included in this review, including two randomized controlled trials and two observational studies. The results regarding birth mode are not entirely clear. Most studies reported that women who receive midwife-led care during the early stages of labor are more likely to have a vaginal birth and less likely to require a cesarean section. However, one study could not find a statistically significant difference regarding birth mode and care model received in early labor. Another study showed increased use of labor augmentation among women receiving obstetrician-led care.
conclusionsThere remains a lack of knowledge about the role of midwife-led care during early labor and its impact on early labor interventions and subsequent birth outcomes. More attention should be focused on early labor care to improve outcomes for laboring women and their partners. Recognizing the potential benefits of midwife-led care during this phase could lead to initiatives aimed at promoting such care across various settings.
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.