CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 521Maternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareGlobal Maternal and Child Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women

Sandall, Jane, Soltani, Hora, Gates, Simon, Shennan, Andrew, Devane, Declan·2015·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004667.pub4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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 (31 May 2015) 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 Selection criteria All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.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. 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 overall fetal loss and neonatal death (fetal loss was assessed by gestation using 24 weeks as the cut-off for viability in many countries) using the GRADE methodology: All primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary o…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd004667.pub4

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 94 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Begley, 2011, Comparison of midwife-led and consultant-led care of healthy women at low risk of childbirth complications in the Republic of Ireland: a randomised trial, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 11, 85, 10.1186/1471-2393-11-85 · DOI
  2. Flint, 1988, Know your midwife, Nursing Times, 84, 28
  3. Flint, 1987, The 'Know your Midwife' Report
  4. Kenny, 1994, Final Report. Westmead Hospital Team Midwifery Project Evaluation
  5. Flood, 2012, Serious adverse event monitoring in a RCT of caseload midwifery (COSMOS), Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 48, 113
  6. McLachlan, 2011, A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery for women at low risk of medical complications (COSMOS): Maternal and infant outcomes, Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 47, 33
  7. McLachlan, 2012, A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery for women at low risk of medical complications (COSMOS): Women's satisfaction with care, Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 48, 41
  8. Hartz, 2012, Does caseload midwifery reduce caesarean section operation rates: The m@ngo trial, Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 48, 27
  9. Cheyne, 1996, Midwife managed care: results of a randomised controlled trial of 1299 women, Prenatal and Neonatal Medicine, 1, 129
  10. Shields, 1996, Women's satisfaction and continuity of care with midwife managed care, Prenatal and Neonatal Medicine, 1, 320
  11. Bernitz, 2012, Is the operative delivery rate in low-risk women dependent on birth care level? A randomised controlled trial, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 91, 45
  12. Klein, 1984, Care in a birth room vs a conventional setting: a controlled trial, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 131, 1461
  13. Vries, 2001, Birth by Design: Pregnancy, Maternity Care and Midwifery in North America and Northern Europe
  14. Flint, 1987, The 'Know your Midwife' Report
  15. Freeman, 2007, Continuity of Care 2006: What Have We Learned Since 2000 and What are Policy Imperatives Now? Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R & D (NCCSDO)
  16. McCourt, 2006, Working with women: developing continuity in practice, 141
  17. 2001, The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report
  18. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan) 2014
  19. Sandall, 2001, Evaluation of the Albany Midwifery Practice: Final Report
  20. Schunemann, 2009, GRADE: from grading the evidence to developing recommendations. A description of the system and a proposal regarding the transferability of the results of clinical research to clinical practice, Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 103, 391
  21. Young, 1997, The costs to the NHS of maternity care: midwife-managed vs shared, British Journal of Midwifery, 5, 465, 10.12968/bjom.1997.5.8.465 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–521 of 521

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sandall, J., Soltani, H., Gates, S., Shennan, A., & Devane, D.
Affiliations
  • St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
  • Sheffield Hallam University (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Published
2015-09-15
Issue
9
Pages
CD004667-CD004667
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd004667.pub4
OpenAlex
W4232203714
Cited by
514
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 5
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2016-04-28)
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0514-10145, 10/4001/02)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
Keywords
models of care, childbirth, midwifery, regional analgesia, epidural analgesia, caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth, preterm birth, fetal death, neonatal death, perineal trauma, normal delivery, maternal morbidity, psychosocial outcomes, maternal satisfaction
MeSH terms
Amnion, Cesarean Section, Continuity of Patient Care, Episiotomy, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Midwifery, Postnatal Care, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Analgesia, Obstetrical, Patient Satisfaction, Models, Organizational, Perinatal Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review