-
Journal of the American College of... Nov 2011Congenital heart disease (CHD) accounts for nearly one-third of all major congenital anomalies. CHD birth prevalence worldwide and over time is suggested to vary;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Congenital heart disease (CHD) accounts for nearly one-third of all major congenital anomalies. CHD birth prevalence worldwide and over time is suggested to vary; however, a complete overview is missing. This systematic review included 114 papers, comprising a total study population of 24,091,867 live births with CHD identified in 164,396 individuals. Birth prevalence of total CHD and the 8 most common subtypes were pooled in 5-year time periods since 1930 and in continent and income groups since 1970 using the inverse variance method. Reported total CHD birth prevalence increased substantially over time, from 0.6 per 1,000 live births (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4 to 0.8) in 1930 to 1934 to 9.1 per 1,000 live births (95% CI: 9.0 to 9.2) after 1995. Over the last 15 years, stabilization occurred, corresponding to 1.35 million newborns with CHD every year. Significant geographical differences were found. Asia reported the highest CHD birth prevalence, with 9.3 per 1,000 live births (95% CI: 8.9 to 9.7), with relatively more pulmonary outflow obstructions and fewer left ventricular outflow tract obstructions. Reported total CHD birth prevalence in Europe was significantly higher than in North America (8.2 per 1,000 live births [95% CI: 8.1 to 8.3] vs. 6.9 per 1,000 live births [95% CI: 6.7 to 7.1]; p < 0.001). Access to health care is still limited in many parts of the world, as are diagnostic facilities, probably accounting for differences in reported birth prevalence between high- and low-income countries. Observed differences may also be of genetic, environmental, socioeconomical, or ethnic origin, and there needs to be further investigation to tailor the management of this global health problem.
Topics: Confidence Intervals; Female; Global Health; Heart Defects, Congenital; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Prevalence
PubMed: 22078432
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.025 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Jan 2017Previous reviews have provided preliminary insights into risk factors and possible prevalence of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) postpartum with no attempt to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Previous reviews have provided preliminary insights into risk factors and possible prevalence of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) postpartum with no attempt to examine prenatal PTSD. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of PTSD during pregnancy and after birth, and the course of PTSD over this time.
METHODS
PsychINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched using PTSD terms crossed with perinatal terms. Studies were included if they reported the prevalence of PTSD during pregnancy or after birth using a diagnostic measure.
RESULTS
59 studies (N =24267) met inclusion criteria: 35 studies of prenatal PTSD and 28 studies of postpartum PTSD (where 4 studies provided prevalence of PTSD in pregnancy and postpartum). In community samples the mean prevalence of prenatal PTSD was 3.3% (95%, CI 2.44-4.54). The majority of postpartum studies measured PTSD in relation to childbirth with a mean prevalence of 4.0% (95%, CI 2.77-5.71) in community samples. Women in high-risk groups were at more risk of PTSD with a mean prevalence of 18.95% (95%, CI 10.62-31.43) in pregnancy and 18.5% (95%, CI 10.6-30.38) after birth. Using clinical interviews was associated with lower prevalence rates in pregnancy and higher prevalence rates postpartum.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations include use of stringent diagnostic criteria, wide variability of PTSD rates, and inadequacy of studies on prenatal PTSD measured in three trimesters.
CONCLUSIONS
PTSD is prevalent during pregnancy and after birth and may increase postpartum if not identified and treated. Assessment and treatment in maternity services is recommended.
Topics: Adaptation, Psychological; Delivery, Obstetric; Depression, Postpartum; Female; Humans; Parturition; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
PubMed: 27865585
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.10.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.
OBJECTIVES
To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (25 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e. regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death using the GRADE methodology: all primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = eight; high quality) and less all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = four), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss less than 24 weeks and neonatal death (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = seven), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = three) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = seven). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss equal to/after 24 weeks and neonatal death, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and all fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.
Topics: Amnion; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Continuity of Patient Care; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Midwifery; Models, Organizational; Patient Satisfaction; Perinatal Care; Postnatal Care; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27121907
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5 -
The Lancet. Global Health Jan 2019Preterm birth is the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years worldwide. Although preterm survival rates have increased in high-income countries, preterm...
BACKGROUND
Preterm birth is the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years worldwide. Although preterm survival rates have increased in high-income countries, preterm newborns still die because of a lack of adequate newborn care in many low-income and middle-income countries. We estimated global, regional, and national rates of preterm birth in 2014, with trends over time for some selected countries.
METHODS
We systematically searched for data on preterm birth for 194 WHO Member States from 1990 to 2014 in databases of national civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS). We also searched for population-representative surveys and research studies for countries with no or limited CRVS data. For 38 countries with high-quality data for preterm births in 2014, data are reported directly. For countries with at least three data points between 1990 and 2014, we used a linear mixed regression model to estimate preterm birth rates. We also calculated regional and global estimates of preterm birth for 2014.
FINDINGS
We identified 1241 data points across 107 countries. The estimated global preterm birth rate for 2014 was 10·6% (uncertainty interval 9·0-12·0), equating to an estimated 14·84 million (12·65 million-16·73 million) live preterm births in 2014. 12· 0 million (81·1%) of these preterm births occurred in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Regional preterm birth rates for 2014 ranged from 13·4% (6·3-30·9) in North Africa to 8·7% (6·3-13·3) in Europe. India, China, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Indonesia accounted for 57·9 million (41×4%) of 139·9 million livebirths and 6·6 million (44×6%) of preterm births globally in 2014. Of the 38 countries with high-quality data, preterm birth rates have increased since 2000 in 26 countries and decreased in 12 countries. Globally, we estimated that the preterm birth rate was 9×8% (8×3-10×9) in 2000, and 10×6% (9×0-12×0) in 2014.
INTERPRETATION
Preterm birth remains a crucial issue in child mortality and improving quality of maternal and newborn care. To better understand the epidemiology of preterm birth, the quality and volume of data needs to be improved, including standardisation of definitions, measurement, and reporting.
FUNDING
WHO and the March of Dimes.
Topics: Female; Global Health; Humans; Linear Models; Pregnancy; Premature Birth
PubMed: 30389451
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30451-0 -
Developmental Medicine and Child... Dec 2022To determine trends and current estimates in regional and global prevalence of cerebral palsy (CP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To determine trends and current estimates in regional and global prevalence of cerebral palsy (CP).
METHOD
A systematic analysis of data from participating CP registers/surveillance systems and population-based prevalence studies (from birth year 1995) was performed. Quality and risk of bias were assessed for both data sources. Analyses were conducted for pre-/perinatal, postnatal, neonatal, and overall CP. For each region, trends were statistically classified as increasing, decreasing, heterogeneous, or no change, and most recent prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Meta-analyses were conducted to determine current birth prevalence estimates (from birth year 2010).
RESULTS
Forty-one regions from 27 countries across five continents were represented. Pre-/perinatal birth prevalence declined significantly across Europe and Australia (11 out of 14 regions), with no change in postneonatal CP. From the limited but increasing data available from regions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), birth prevalence for pre-/perinatal CP was as high as 3.4 per 1000 (95% CI 3.0-3.9) live births. Following meta-analyses, birth prevalence for pre-/perinatal CP in regions from high-income countries (HICs) was 1.5 per 1000 (95% CI 1.4-1.6) live births, and 1.6 per 1000 (95% CI 1.5-1.7) live births when postneonatal CP was included.
INTERPRETATION
The birth prevalence estimate of CP in HICs declined to 1.6 per 1000 live births. Data available from LMICs indicated markedly higher birth prevalence.
WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS
• Birth prevalence of pre-/perinatal cerebral palsy (CP) in high-income countries (HICs) is decreasing. • Current overall CP birth prevalence for HICs is 1.6 per 1000 live births. • Trends in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) cannot currently be measured. • Current birth prevalence in LMICs is markedly higher than in HICs. • Active surveillance of CP helps to assess the impact of medical advancements and social/economic development. • Population-based data on prevalence and trends of CP are critical to inform policy.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Australia; Cerebral Palsy; Europe; Poverty; Prevalence
PubMed: 35952356
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.15346 -
Midwifery Nov 2021The anxiety mothers experience during pregnancy is well known and may have negative consequences for the emotional, psychological, and social development of newborns.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The anxiety mothers experience during pregnancy is well known and may have negative consequences for the emotional, psychological, and social development of newborns. Anxiety must therefore be reduced using different strategies.
OBJECTIVE
To determine published non-pharmacological interventions to reduce anxiety during pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum.
METHODS
A systematic peer-review of experimental and quasi-experimental studies was conducted using the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and CINAHL databases. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Spanish version of the PEDro scale. Two researchers participated independently in the data selection and extraction process.
FINDINGS
587 articles were identified, of which 21 met the eligibility criteria. In eleven studies the intervention was performed during pregnancy, in three of them during labour, in four of them during the postpartum period, and in three of them during pregnancy and postpartum. During pregnancy, the most effective interventions were behavioural activation, cognitive behavioural therapy, yoga, music therapy, and relaxation; during childbirth: aromatherapy; during pregnancy and postpartum: antenatal training, massage by partners, and self-guided book reading with professional telephone assistance.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The most effective interventions to reduce anxiety were performed either during pregnancy or during the postpartum period, not during labour. Most of the interventions were performed on the women, with few of them being performed on both partners. Non-pharmacological interventions may be applied by nurses and midwives to reduce anxiety during pregnancy, labour and postpartum.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Obstetric; Parturition; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy
PubMed: 34464836
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2021.103126 -
BMC Pediatrics Apr 2013The aim of this study was to revise the 2003 Fenton Preterm Growth Chart, specifically to: a) harmonize the preterm growth chart with the new World Health Organization... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to revise the 2003 Fenton Preterm Growth Chart, specifically to: a) harmonize the preterm growth chart with the new World Health Organization (WHO) Growth Standard, b) smooth the data between the preterm and WHO estimates, informed by the Preterm Multicentre Growth (PreM Growth) study while maintaining data integrity from 22 to 36 and at 50 weeks, and to c) re-scale the chart x-axis to actual age (rather than completed weeks) to support growth monitoring.
METHODS
Systematic review, meta-analysis, and growth chart development. We systematically searched published and unpublished literature to find population-based preterm size at birth measurement (weight, length, and/or head circumference) references, from developed countries with: Corrected gestational ages through infant assessment and/or statistical correction; Data percentiles as low as 24 weeks gestational age or lower; Sample with greater than 500 infants less than 30 weeks. Growth curves for males and females were produced using cubic splines to 50 weeks post menstrual age. LMS parameters (skew, median, and standard deviation) were calculated.
RESULTS
Six large population-based surveys of size at preterm birth representing 3,986,456 births (34,639 births < 30 weeks) from countries Germany, United States, Italy, Australia, Scotland, and Canada were combined in meta-analyses. Smooth growth chart curves were developed, while ensuring close agreement with the data between 24 and 36 weeks and at 50 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS
The revised sex-specific actual-age growth charts are based on the recommended growth goal for preterm infants, the fetus, followed by the term infant. These preterm growth charts, with the disjunction between these datasets smoothing informed by the international PreM Growth study, may support an improved transition of preterm infant growth monitoring to the WHO growth charts.
Topics: Body Height; Body Weight; Female; Gestational Age; Growth Charts; Head; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Male; Models, Statistical; World Health Organization
PubMed: 23601190
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-13-59 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Jun 2021To estimate the risk of maternal and neonatal sepsis associated with chorioamnionitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the risk of maternal and neonatal sepsis associated with chorioamnionitis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, BIOSIS, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for full-text articles in English from inception until May 11, 2020.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We screened 1,251 studies. Randomized controlled trials, case-control, or cohort studies quantifying a relationship between chorioamnionitis and sepsis in mothers (postpartum) or neonates born at greater than 22 weeks of gestation were eligible. Studies were grouped for meta-analyses according to exposures of histologic or clinical chorioamnionitis and outcomes of maternal or neonatal sepsis.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
One hundred three studies were included, and 55 met criteria for meta-analysis (39 studies of preterm neonates, 10 studies of general populations of preterm and term neonates, and six studies of late preterm and term neonates). Study details and quantitative data were abstracted. Random-effects models were used to generate pooled odds ratios (ORs); most studies only reported unadjusted results. Histologic chorioamnionitis was associated with confirmed and any early-onset neonatal sepsis (unadjusted pooled ORs 4.42 [95% CI 2.68-7.29] and 5.88 [95% CI 3.68-9.41], respectively). Clinical chorioamnionitis was also associated with confirmed and any early-onset neonatal sepsis (unadjusted pooled ORs 6.82 [95% CI 4.93-9.45] and 3.90 [95% CI 2.74-5.55], respectively). Additionally, histologic and clinical chorioamnionitis were each associated with higher odds of late-onset sepsis in preterm neonates. Confirmed sepsis incidence was 7% (early-onset) and 22% (late-onset) for histologic and 6% (early-onset) and 26% (late-onset) for clinical chorioamnionitis-exposed neonates. Three studies evaluated chorioamnionitis and maternal sepsis and were inconclusive.
CONCLUSION
Both histologic and clinical chorioamnionitis were associated with early- and late-onset sepsis in neonates. Overall, our findings support current guidelines for preventative neonatal care. There was insufficient evidence to determine the association between chorioamnionitis and maternal sepsis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42020156812.
Topics: Chorioamnionitis; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Incidence; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Sepsis; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Sepsis; Term Birth; Time Factors
PubMed: 33957655
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004377 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2013Newborn animal studies and pilot studies in humans suggest that mild hypothermia following peripartum hypoxia-ischaemia in newborn infants may reduce neurological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Newborn animal studies and pilot studies in humans suggest that mild hypothermia following peripartum hypoxia-ischaemia in newborn infants may reduce neurological sequelae without adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of therapeutic hypothermia in encephalopathic asphyxiated newborn infants on mortality, long-term neurodevelopmental disability and clinically important side effects.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group as outlined in The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2007). Randomised controlled trials evaluating therapeutic hypothermia in term and late preterm newborns with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy were identified by searching the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2007), previous reviews including cross-references, abstracts, conferences, symposia proceedings, expert informants and journal handsearching. We updated this search in May 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing the use of therapeutic hypothermia with standard care in encephalopathic term or late preterm infants with evidence of peripartum asphyxia and without recognisable major congenital anomalies. The primary outcome measure was death or long-term major neurodevelopmental disability. Other outcomes included adverse effects of cooling and 'early' indicators of neurodevelopmental outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four review authors independently selected, assessed the quality of and extracted data from the included studies. Study authors were contacted for further information. Meta-analyses were performed using risk ratios (RR) and risk differences (RD) for dichotomous data, and weighted mean difference for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 randomised controlled trials in this updated review, comprising 1505 term and late preterm infants with moderate/severe encephalopathy and evidence of intrapartum asphyxia. Therapeutic hypothermia resulted in a statistically significant and clinically important reduction in the combined outcome of mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability to 18 months of age (typical RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.83); typical RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.10); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7 (95% CI 5 to 10) (8 studies, 1344 infants). Cooling also resulted in statistically significant reductions in mortality (typical RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.88), typical RD -0.09 (95% CI -0.13 to -0.04); NNTB 11 (95% CI 8 to 25) (11 studies, 1468 infants) and in neurodevelopmental disability in survivors (typical RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.94), typical RD -0.13 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.07); NNTB 8 (95% CI 5 to 14) (8 studies, 917 infants). Some adverse effects of hypothermia included an increase sinus bradycardia and a significant increase in thrombocytopenia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence from the 11 randomised controlled trials included in this systematic review (N = 1505 infants) that therapeutic hypothermia is beneficial in term and late preterm newborns with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Cooling reduces mortality without increasing major disability in survivors. The benefits of cooling on survival and neurodevelopment outweigh the short-term adverse effects. Hypothermia should be instituted in term and late preterm infants with moderate-to-severe hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy if identified before six hours of age. Further trials to determine the appropriate techniques of cooling, including refinement of patient selection, duration of cooling and method of providing therapeutic hypothermia, will refine our understanding of this intervention.
Topics: Asphyxia Neonatorum; Developmental Disabilities; Humans; Hypothermia, Induced; Hypoxia-Ischemia, Brain; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Term Birth
PubMed: 23440789
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003311.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery-led care settings.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery-led care settings. However, there are concerns around neonatal water inhalation, increased requirement for admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), maternal and/or neonatal infection, and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). This is an update of a review last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of water immersion during labour and/or birth (first, second and third stage of labour) on women and their infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 July 2017), and reference lists of retrieved trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing water immersion with no immersion, or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management during labour and/or birth in healthy low-risk women at term gestation with a singleton fetus. Quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 15 trials conducted between 1990 and 2015 (3663 women): eight involved water immersion during the first stage of labour; two during the second stage only; four during the first and second stages of labour, and one comparing early versus late immersion during the first stage of labour. No trials evaluated different baths/pools, or third-stage labour management. All trials were undertaken in a hospital labour ward setting, with a varying degree of medical intervention considered as routine practice. No study was carried out in a midwifery-led care setting. Most trial authors did not specify the parity of women. Trials were subject to varying degrees of bias: the intervention could not be blinded and there was a lack of information about randomisation, and whether analyses were undertaken by intention-to-treat.Immersion in water versus no immersion (first stage of labour)There is probably little or no difference in spontaneous vaginal birth between immersion and no immersion (82% versus 83%; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.04; 6 trials; 2559 women; moderate-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (14% versus 12%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05; 6 trials; 2559 women; low-quality evidence); and caesarean section (4% versus 5%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.79; 7 trials; 2652 women; low-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of immersion on estimated blood loss (mean difference (MD) -14.33 mL, 95% CI -63.03 to 34.37; 2 trials; 153 women; very low-quality evidence) and third- or fourth-degree tears (3% versus 3%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.18; 4 trials; 2341 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was a small reduction in the risk of using regional analgesia for women allocated to water immersion from 43% to 39% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; 5 trials; 2439 women; moderate-quality evidence). Perinatal deaths were not reported, and there is insufficient evidence to determine the impact on neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions (6% versus 8%; average RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.97; 2 trials; 1511 infants; I² = 36%; low-quality evidence), or on neonatal infection rates (1% versus 1%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.94; 5 trials; 1295 infants; very low-quality evidence).Immersion in water versus no immersion (second stage of labour)There were no clear differences between groups for spontaneous vaginal birth (97% versus 99%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 120 women; 1 trial; low-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (2% versus 2%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence); caesarean section (2% versus 1%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence), and NICU admissions (11% versus 9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.59; 2 trials; 291 women; very low-quality evidence). Use of regional analgesia was not relevant to the second stage of labour. Third- or fourth-degree tears, and estimated blood loss were not reported in either trial. No trial reported neonatal infection but did report neonatal temperature less than 36.2°C at birth (9% versus 9%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.20; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), greater than 37.5°C at birth (6% versus 15%; RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.73 to 9.35; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), and fever reported in first week (5% versus 2%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.82; 1 trial; 171 infants; very low-quality evidence), with no clear effect between groups being observed. One perinatal death occurred in the immersion group in one trial (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.20; 1 trial; 120 infants; very low-quality evidence). The infant was born to a mother with HIV and the cause of death was deemed to be intrauterine infection.There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the baby or woman from either the first or second stage of labour.Only one trial (200 women) compared early and late entry into the water and there were insufficient data to show any clear differences.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In healthy women at low risk of complications there is moderate to low-quality evidence that water immersion during the first stage of labour probably has little effect on mode of birth or perineal trauma, but may reduce the use of regional analgesia. The evidence for immersion during the second stage of labour is limited and does not show clear differences on maternal or neonatal outcomes intensive care. There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring or giving birth in water. Available evidence is limited by clinical variability and heterogeneity across trials, and no trial has been conducted in a midwifery-led setting.
Topics: Analgesia, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Immersion; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Newborn, Diseases; Infections; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Labor Stage, First; Labor Stage, Second; Natural Childbirth; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Water
PubMed: 29768662
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub4