-
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Sep 2022This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical data including success rates, tissue preservation, esthetic results, and patient-reported outcomes between delayed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical data including success rates, tissue preservation, esthetic results, and patient-reported outcomes between delayed implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and immediate implant placement (IIP).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Both electronic and manual searches were performed for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies consisting of at least 10 cases per group and a follow-up of at least 1-year in duration. The primary outcome was the implant success rate and secondary outcomes were changes in marginal bone level (MBL), pink esthetic score (PES) and patient reported outcomes consisting of complications and satisfaction.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies were included (8 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies). This review contained 456 implants placed after ARP and 459 implants placed through IIP. The results from this meta-analysis showed that the success rates of implants placed through ARP protocol (98.68%) was significantly higher than that of implants placed through IIP protocol (95.21%) (RR = 1.03; 95% CI [1.01; 1.06]; P = .008; I = 0%).
CONCLUSION
The results from this meta-analysis and systematic review showed that implants placed through ARP protocol may demonstrate higher success rates compared to implants placed through IIP.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36162892
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101734 -
Health & Social Care in the Community Feb 2022Housing is a significant determinant of health and is widely accepted as a key solution to address some of the health disparities that exist among the homeless. It is... (Review)
Review
Housing is a significant determinant of health and is widely accepted as a key solution to address some of the health disparities that exist among the homeless. It is estimated that 150 million people worldwide are homeless, and approximately 1.8 billion lack adequate housing. However, understanding of how housing has a positive impact on the health of the homeless remains unclear and underdeveloped. This systematic review investigates intervention studies that report on the physical and mental health effects of housing homeless persons. A search of PubMed, PsycINFO, EBSCOHost-Academic Search Complete and the Cochrane Library was conducted for peer-reviewed articles published in English from 1999 to 2020 that had a combination of at least one housing intervention and health outcome, with a homeless sample. Three previous reviews and 24 studies were included for analysis. Most of the studies (n = 20) encompassed permanent supportive housing interventions that emphasised placing homeless people with mental illness directly into affordable housing with access to support services. The primary health outcomes reported were general physical and mental health, well-being, and quality of life. Despite inconsistent findings and significant issues identified in the reviewed literature, housing (in the short term) improves some aspects of health in homeless populations with human immunodeficiency virus, anxiety and depression.
Topics: Ill-Housed Persons; Housing; Humans; Mental Disorders; Mental Health; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34423491
DOI: 10.1111/hsc.13486 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common operation. The indications for surgical removal of these teeth are alleviation of local pain, swelling and trismus, and also the prevention of spread of infection that may occasionally threaten life. Surgery is commonly associated with short-term postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less frequently, infection, dry socket (alveolar osteitis) and trigeminal nerve injuries may occur. This review focuses on the optimal methods in order to improve patient experience and minimise postoperative morbidity.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the relative benefits and risks of different techniques for surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 8 July 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 July 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 July 2019). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors were involved in assessing the relevance of identified studies, evaluated the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data in parallel-group trials (or Peto odds ratios if the event rate was low), odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data in cross-over or split-mouth studies, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We took into account the pairing of the split-mouth studies in our analyses, and combined parallel-group and split-mouth studies using the generic inverse-variance method. We used the fixed-effect model for three studies or fewer, and random-effects model for more than three studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 62 trials with 4643 participants. Several of the trials excluded individuals who were not in excellent health. We assessed 33 of the studies (53%) as being at high risk of bias and 29 as unclear. We report results for our primary outcomes below. Comparisons of different suturing techniques and of drain versus no drain did not report any of our primary outcomes. No studies provided useable data for any of our primary outcomes in relation to coronectomy. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether envelope or triangular flap designs led to more alveolar osteitis (OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.23; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), or permanent altered tongue sensation (Peto OR 4.48, 95% CI 0.07 to 286.49; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In terms of other adverse effects, two studies reported wound dehiscence at up to 30 days after surgery, but found no difference in risk between interventions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the use of a lingual retractor affected the risk of permanent altered sensation compared to not using one (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of our other primary outcomes were reported by studies included in this comparison. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether lingual split with chisel is better than a surgical hand-piece for bone removal in terms of wound infection (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Alveolar osteitis, permanent altered sensation, and other adverse effects were not reported. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in alveolar osteitis according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.09; 1 study) or irrigation volume (high versus low; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 study), or whether there is any difference in postoperative infection according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 study) or irrigation volume (low versus high; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; 1 study) (all very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent altered sensation and adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether primary or secondary wound closure led to more alveolar osteitis (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 96.34; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), or adverse effects (bleeding) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.47; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent sensation changes. Placing platelet rich plasma (PRP) or platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in sockets may reduce the incidence of alveolar osteitis (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67; 2 studies), but the evidence is of low certainty. Our other primary outcomes were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this 2020 update, we added 27 new studies to the original 35 in the 2014 review. Unfortunately, even with the addition of these studies, we have been unable to draw many meaningful conclusions. The small number of trials evaluating each comparison and reporting our primary outcomes, along with methodological biases in the included trials, means that the body of evidence for each of the nine comparisons evaluated is of low or very low certainty. Participant populations in the trials may not be representative of the general population, or even the population undergoing third molar surgery. Many trials excluded individuals who were not in good health, and several excluded those with active infection or who had deep impactions of their third molars. Consequently, we are unable to make firm recommendations to surgeons to inform their techniques for removal of mandibular third molars. The evidence is uncertain, though we note that there is some limited evidence that placing PRP or PRF in sockets may reduce the incidence of dry socket. The evidence provided in this review may be used as a guide for surgeons when selecting and refining their surgical techniques. Ongoing studies may allow us to provide more definitive conclusions in the future.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Drainage; Dry Socket; Humans; Lip; Mandible; Middle Aged; Molar, Third; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sensation Disorders; Surgical Flaps; Surgical Wound Infection; Therapeutic Irrigation; Tongue; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; Wound Closure Techniques; Young Adult
PubMed: 32712962
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004345.pub3 -
Facial Plastic Surgery : FPS Oct 2021Injectable fillers represent one of the most requested minimally invasive treatments to rejuvenate the aging face, and its popularity is steadily rising. A vast majority...
Injectable fillers represent one of the most requested minimally invasive treatments to rejuvenate the aging face, and its popularity is steadily rising. A vast majority of filler treatments are with hyaluronic acid (HA). The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate patient outcomes, safety profile, and administration techniques of various HA fillers for malar augmentation. A systematic review of the published literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and included PubMed, Embase, and Science Direct databases. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used were "cheek" OR "midface" OR "malar" and "filler" OR "hyaluronic acid" OR "Juvederm" OR "Restylane" OR "Perlane" OR "Belotero." The initial search identified 699 articles; 256 duplicates were removed. Additional 12 studies were identified from reference lists. A total of 455 were screened by title and abstract and 387 studies were eliminated based on criteria. Also, 68 articles underwent full-text review, and 18 articles were included in the final review and involved seven different HA formulations. Men and women from many age groups were highly satisfied with their results following HA treatment for midface augmentation up to 24 months. The most common adverse events included bruising, swelling, and tenderness, and typically lasted no more than 2 weeks. Upper cheek filler injections near the zygoma should be placed in the submuscular plane while lower cheek injections should be placed in the subcutaneous tissue. HA is an attractive choice for midface augmentation due to its high patient satisfaction, long-lasting effects, and low side-effect profile. Due to the variability in technique, level of expertise, and subjective measurements across studies, one optimal regimen could not be concluded. However, midface augmentation treatment should be personalized to each patient. Additional clinical trials are required to more conclusively determine the most appropriate approach for this procedure.
Topics: Cheek; Child, Preschool; Cosmetic Techniques; Dermal Fillers; Face; Female; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Male; Skin Aging
PubMed: 33634456
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1724122 -
International Journal of Implant... Oct 2020Immediate implants are frequently employed in the anterior maxillary area. However, the installation of dental implants simultaneously with tooth extraction can also... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Immediate implants are frequently employed in the anterior maxillary area. However, the installation of dental implants simultaneously with tooth extraction can also provide with benefits in the posterior areas with a reduction in time prior the recovery of the masticatory function. Results previously reported in the literature show high-survival and success rates for implants placed in extraction sockets in molar areas; however, this topic has received limited systematic analysis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic and manual literature searches were performed by two independent reviewers in several data-bases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, for articles up to January 2019 reporting outcomes of immediate implants placed in molar areas. Primary outcomes included survival and success rates, as well as marginal bone loss. Secondary outcomes included the influence of implant position, type of implant connection, grafting protocol, flap or flapless approach, implant diameter, surgical phase, presence of buccal plate, and loading protocol.
RESULTS
Twenty studies provided information on the survival rate, with a total sample of 1.106 implants. The weighted mean survival rate of immediate implants after 1 year of follow-up was 96.6%, and the success rate was 93.3%. On the other hand, marginal bone loss was 1.29 ± 0.24 mm. Secondary outcomes demonstrated that grafting the gap and the loading protocol have an effect on survival and success rates. Similarly, the presence or absence of the buccal bone affect crestal bone levels. Meta-analysis of 4 investigations showed a weighted mean difference of 0.31 mm ± 0.8 IC 95% (0.15-0.46) more marginal bone loss at immediate implant placement versus implants in healed sites (p < 0.001) I = 15.2%.
CONCLUSION
In selected scenarios, immediate implant placement in molar extraction socket might be considered a predictable technique as demonstrated by a high survival and success rates, with minimal marginal bone loss.
PubMed: 32770283
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-020-00235-5 -
The Journal of Oral Implantology Jun 2021The present systematic review evaluates the safety of placing dental implants in patients with a history of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drug therapy. The Preferred...
The present systematic review evaluates the safety of placing dental implants in patients with a history of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drug therapy. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey databases were used to search for clinical studies (English only) to July 16, 2019. Study quality was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case series. A broad search strategy resulted in the identification of 7542 studies. There were 28 studies reporting on bisphosphonates (5 cohort, 6 case control, and 17 case series) and 1 study reporting on denosumab (case series) that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The quality assessment revealed an overall moderate quality of evidence among the studies. Results demonstrated that patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis are not at increased risk of implant failure in terms of osseointegration. However, all patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment, whether taken orally for osteoporosis or intravenously for malignancy, appear to be at risk of "implant surgery-triggered" medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). In contrast, the risk of MRONJ in patients treated with denosumab for osteoporosis was found to be negligible. In conclusion, general and specialist dentists should exercise caution when planning dental implant therapy in patients with a history of bisphosphonate and denosumab drug therapy. Importantly, all patients with a history of bisphosphonates are at risk of MRONJ, necessitating this to be included in the informed consent obtained before implant placement.
Topics: Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Dental Implants; Diphosphonates; Humans; Jaw; Osteonecrosis
PubMed: 32699903
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00351 -
International Journal of Implant... Jul 2021This systematic review aimed to propose a treatment protocol for repairing intraoperative perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during maxillary sinus floor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during maxillary sinus floor augmentation with lateral approach in relation to subsequent implant survival rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review aimed to propose a treatment protocol for repairing intraoperative perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) procedures with lateral window technique. In turn, to assess subsequent implant survival rates placed below repaired membranes compared with intact membranes and therefore determine whether membrane perforation constitutes a risk factor for implant survival.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic search for articles published between 2008 and April 30, 2020, in four databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) via Ovid; (2) Web of Science (WOS); (3) SCOPUS; and (4) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); also, a complementary handsearch was carried out. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed.
RESULTS
Seven articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. A total of 1598 sinus lift surgeries were included, allowing the placement of 3604 implants. A total of 1115 implants were placed under previously perforated and repaired membranes, obtaining a survival rate of 97.68%, while 2495 implants were placed below sinus membranes that were not damaged during surgery, obtaining a survival rate of 98.88%. The rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation shown in the systematic review was 30.6%. In the articles reviewed, the most widely used technique for repairing perforated membranes was collagen membrane repair.
CONCLUSIONS
Schneiderian membrane perforation during MFSA procedures with lateral approach is not a risk factor for dental implant survival (p=0.229; RR 0.977; 95% CI 0.941-1.015). The knowledge of the exact size of the membrane perforation is essential for deciding on the right treatment plan.
Topics: Maxillary Sinus; Nasal Mucosa; Prostheses and Implants; Sinus Floor Augmentation; Survival Rate; United States
PubMed: 34250560
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00346-7 -
PloS One 2020The need to control for the potential influence of menstrual cycle phase on resting metabolism (RMR) places a burden on research participants who must self-report onset... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The need to control for the potential influence of menstrual cycle phase on resting metabolism (RMR) places a burden on research participants who must self-report onset of menstruation and researchers who must schedule metabolic testing accordingly.
PURPOSE
To systematically review and analyze existing research to determine the effect of menstrual cycle on RMR.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus databases using the search terms "menstrual cycle and metabolic rate" and "menstrual cycle and energy expenditure." Eligibility criteria were English language, single-group repeated measures design, and RMR as either a primary or secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed based on study sample, measurement, and control of confounders. Differences between the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle were analyzed using the standardized mean difference in effect size.
RESULTS
Thirty English-language studies published between 1930 and December 2019 were included in the systematic review, and 26 studies involving 318 women were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was a small but significant effect favoring increased RMR in the luteal phase (ES = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.17, 0.49, p < 0.001).
DISCUSSION
Limitations include risk of bias regarding measurement of both menstrual cycle and RMR. Sample sizes were small and studies did not report control of potential confounders. Sub-group analysis demonstrated that in more recent studies published since 2000, the effect of menstrual phase was reduced and not statistically significant (ES = 0.23; 95% CI = -0.00, 0.47; p = 0.055). Until larger and better designed studies are available, based on our current findings, researchers should be aware of the potential confounding influence of the menstrual cycle and control for it by testing consistently in one phase of the cycle when measuring RMR in pre-menopausal women.
Topics: Basal Metabolism; Female; Humans; Menstrual Cycle; Rest
PubMed: 32658929
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236025 -
Archives of Public Health = Archives... Nov 2022The purpose of this systematic review study was to determine the national, regional, and global prevalence of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) vaping.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this systematic review study was to determine the national, regional, and global prevalence of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) vaping.
METHOD
The articles were searched in July 2020 without a time limit in Web of Science (ISI), Scopus, PubMed, and Ovid-MEDLINE. At first, the titles and abstracts of the articles were reviewed, and if they were appropriate, they entered the second stage of screening. In the second stage, the whole articles were reviewed and articles that met the inclusion criteria were selected. In this study, search, selection of studies, qualitative evaluation, and data extraction were performed by two authors independently, and any disagreement between the two authors was reviewed and corrected by a third author.
RESULTS
In this study, the lifetime and current prevalence of e-cigarettes vaping globally were 23% and 11%, respectively. Lifetime and current prevalence of e-cigarettes vaping in women were 16% and 8%, respectively. Also, lifetime and current prevalence of e-cigarettes vaping in men were 22% and 12%, respectively. In this study, the current prevalence of e-cigarettes vaping in who had lifetime smoked conventional cigarette was 39%, and in current smokers was 43%. The lifetime prevalence of e-cigarettes vaping in the Continents of America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania were 24%, 26%, 16%, and 25%, respectively. The current prevalence of e-cigarettes vaping in the Continents of America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania were 10%, 14%, 11%, and 6%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the popularity of e-cigarettes is increasing globally. Therefore, it is necessary for countries to have more control over the consumption and distribution of e-cigarettes, as well as to formulate the laws prohibiting about the e-cigarettes vaping in public places. There is also a need to design and conduct information campaigns to increase community awareness about e-cigarettes vaping.
PubMed: 36415010
DOI: 10.1186/s13690-022-00998-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned hospital birth in many places does not reduce mortality and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned hospital birth in many places does not reduce mortality and morbidity but increases the frequency of interventions and complications. Euro-Peristat (part of the European Union's Health Monitoring Programme) has raised concerns about iatrogenic effects of obstetric interventions, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has raised concern that the increasing medicalisation of childbirth tends to undermine women's own capability to give birth and negatively impacts their childbirth experience. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1998, and previously updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of planned hospital birth with planned home birth attended by a midwife or others with midwifery skills and backed up by a modern hospital system in case a transfer to hospital should turn out to be necessary. The primary focus is on women with an uncomplicated pregnancy and low risk of medical intervention during birth. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP, and conference proceedings), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 July 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives. Cluster-randomised trials, quasi-randomised trials, and trials published only as an abstract were also eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked the data for accuracy. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial involving 11 participants. This was a small feasibility study to show that well-informed women - contrary to common beliefs - were prepared to be randomised. This update did not identify any additional studies for inclusion, but excluded one study that had been awaiting assessment. The included study was at high risk of bias for three out of seven risk of bias domains. The trial did not report on five of the seven primary outcomes, and reported zero events for one primary outcome (caesarean section), and non-zero events for the remaining primary outcome (baby not breastfed). Maternal mortality, perinatal mortality (non-malformed), Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes, transfer to neonatal intensive care unit, and maternal satisfaction were not reported. The overall certainty of the evidence for the two reported primary outcomes was very low according to our GRADE assessment (downgraded two levels for high overall risk of bias (due to high risk of bias arising from lack of blinding, high risk of selective reporting and lack of ability to check for publication bias) and two levels for very serious imprecision (single study with few events)). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that for selected, low-risk pregnant women, the evidence from randomised trials to support that planned hospital birth reduces maternal or perinatal mortality, morbidity, or any other critical outcome is uncertain. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be just as important to prepare a regularly updated systematic review including observational studies as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions as to attempt to set up new RCTs. As women and healthcare practitioners may be aware of evidence from observational studies, and as the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the International Confederation of Midwives collaboratively conclude that there is strong evidence that out-of-hospital birth supported by a registered midwife is safe, equipoise may no longer exist, and randomised trials may now thus be considered unethical or hardly feasible.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Pregnant Women; Home Childbirth; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Parturition; Perinatal Death; Hospitals
PubMed: 36884026
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000352.pub3