65
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The evidence for emergency obstetric care

      , , , ,
      International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We searched for evidence for the effectiveness of emergency obstetric care (EmOC) interventions in reducing maternal mortality primarily in developing countries. We reviewed population-based studies with maternal mortality as the outcome variable and ranked them according to the system for ranking the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force. A systematic search of published literature was conducted for this review, including searches of Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. The strength of the evidence is high in several studies with a design that places them in the second and third tier in the quality of evidence ranking system. No studies were found that are experimental in design that would give them a top ranking, due to the measurement challenges associated with maternal mortality, although many of the specific individual clinical interventions that comprise EmOC have been evaluated through experimental design. There is strong evidence based on studies, using quasi-experimental, observational and ecological designs, to support the contention that EmOC must be a critical component of any program to reduce maternal mortality.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Evidence-Based Public Health: Moving Beyond Randomized Trials

          Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evaluating the efficacy of clinical interventions, where the causal chain between the agent and the outcome is relatively short and simple and where results may be safely extrapolated to other settings. However, causal chains in public health interventions are complex, making RCT results subject to effect modification in different populations. Both the internal and external validity of RCT findings can be greatly enhanced by observational studies using adequacy or plausibility designs. For evaluating large-scale interventions, studies with plausibility designs are often the only feasible option and may provide valid evidence of impact. There is an urgent need to develop evaluation standards and protocols for use in circumstances where RCTs are not appropriate.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              WHO systematic review of randomised controlled trials of routine antenatal care.

              There is a lack of strong evidence on the effectiveness of the content, frequency, and timing of visits in standard antenatal-care programmes. We undertook a systematic review of randomised trials assessing the effectiveness of different models of antenatal care. The main hypothesis was that a model with a lower number of antenatal visits, with or without goal-oriented components, would be as effective as the standard antenatal-care model in terms of clinical outcomes, perceived satisfaction, and costs. The interventions compared were the provision of a lower number of antenatal visits (new model) and a standard antenatal-visits programme. The selected outcomes were pre-eclampsia, urinary-tract infection, postpartum anaemia, maternal mortality, low birthweight, and perinatal mortality. We also selected measures of women's satisfaction with care and cost-effectiveness. This review drew on the search strategy developed for the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group of the Cochrane Collaboration. Seven eligible randomised controlled trials were identified. 57418 women participated in these studies: 30799 in the new-model groups (29870 with outcome data) and 26619 in the standard-model groups (25821 with outcome data). There was no clinically differential effect of the reduced number of antenatal visits when the results were pooled for pre-eclampsia (typical odds ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.66-1.26]), urinary-tract infection (0.93 [0.79-1.10]). postpartum anaemia (1.01), maternal mortality (0.91 [0.55-1.51]), or low birthweight (1.04 [0.93-1.17]). The rates of perinatal mortality were similar, although the rarity of the outcome did not allow formal statistical equivalence to be attained. Some dissatisfaction with care, particularly among women in more developed countries, was observed with the new model. The cost of the new model was equal to or less than that of the standard model. A model with a reduced number of antenatal visits, with or without goal-oriented components, could be introduced into clinical practice without risk to mother or baby, but some degree of dissatisfaction by the mother could be expected. Lower costs can be achieved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
                International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
                Elsevier BV
                00207292
                February 2005
                February 2005
                January 08 2005
                : 88
                : 2
                : 181-193
                Article
                10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.11.026
                15694106
                74e94876-dd16-4e5a-9964-dc54720d81a7
                © 2005

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article