iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22972043
Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2012 Sep 12;9(9):CD000352.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000352.pub2.

Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth

Affiliations
Review

Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth

Ole Olsen et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Update in

Abstract

Background: Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned home birth in many places can be as safe as planned hospital birth and with less intervention and fewer complications. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1998.

Objectives: To assess the effects of planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth in selected low-risk women, assisted by an experienced midwife with collaborative medical back up in case transfer should be necessary.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 March 2012) and contacted editors and authors involved with possible trials.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives.

Data collection and analysis: The two review authors as independently as possible assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

Main results: Two trials met the inclusion criteria but only one trial involving 11 women provided some outcome data and was included. The evidence from this trial was of moderate quality and too small to allow conclusions to be drawn.

Authors' conclusions: There is no strong evidence from randomised trials to favour either planned hospital birth or planned home birth for low-risk pregnant women. However, the trials show that women living in areas where they are not well informed about home birth may welcome ethically well-designed trials that would ensure an informed choice. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be 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 randomised controlled trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. ‘Risk of bias’ graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
Figure 2
Figure 2. ‘Risk of bias’ summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
Figure 3
Figure 3. Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth, outcome: 1.6 Mother disappointed about allocation

Update of

Similar articles

Cited by

References

References to studies included in this review

    1. Dowswell T, Thornton JG, Hewison J, Lilford RJL. Should there be a trial of home versus hospital delivery in the United Kingdom? Measuring outcomes other than safety is feasible. BMJ. 1996;312:753. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

    1. Bateman DA, O’Bryan L, Nicholas SW, Heagarty MC. Outcome of unattended out-of-hospital births in Harlem. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 1994;148:147–52. - PubMed
    1. Berghs G, Spanjaards E, Driessen L, Doesburg W, Eskes TSO. Neonatal neurological outcome after low-risk pregnancies. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 1995;62:167–71. - PubMed
    1. MacVicar J, Dobbie G, Owen Johnstone L, Jagger C, Hopkins M, Kennedy JSO. Simulated home delivery in hospital: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1993;100:316–23. - PubMed
    1. O’Connor ME, Addiego JE., Jr. Use of oral vitamin K1 to prevent hemorrhagic disease of the newborn infant. Journal of Pediatrics. 1986;108(4):616–9. - PubMed
    1. Truffert P, Goujard J, Dehan M, Vodovar M, Breart G. Outborn status with a medical neonatal transport service and survival without disability at two years. A population-based cohort survey of newborns of less than 33 weeks of gestation. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 1998;79(1):13–8. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

    1. Hendrix M, Van Horck M, Moreta D, Nieman F, Nieuwenhuijze M, Severens J, et al. Why women do not accept randomisation for place of birth: feasibility of a RCT in The Netherlands. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2009;116(4):537–42. Discussion 542-4. - PubMed
    1. Olsen O. Was the Dutch home birth trial properly registered and performed? BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2010;117(9):1162–3. Author reply 1163. - PubMed

Additional references

    1. Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GM. Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2006;(3) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006066. - PubMed
    1. Anim-Somuah M, Smyth R, Howell C. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005;(4) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub2. - PubMed
    1. Anonymous Editors’ comment. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2011;204(4):e20. - PubMed
    1. Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP. Evidence-based labor and delivery management. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2008;199(5):445–54. - PubMed
    1. Blix E, Reinar LM, Klovning A, Øian P. Prognostic value of the labour admission test and its effectiveness compared with auscultation only: a systematic review. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2005;112:1595–604. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

    1. Olsen O. Home versus hospital birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1997;(2) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000352. - PubMed
    1. Olsen O, Jewell D. Home versus hospital birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1998;(3) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000352. - PubMed
    1. * Indicates the major publication for the study