4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      A comparison of intermittent and continuous support during labor: A meta-analysis

      , ,
      American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
      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

          Our goal was to contrast the influence of intermittent and continuous support provided by doulas during labor and delivery on 5 childbirth outcomes. Data were aggregated across 11 clinical trials by means of meta-analytic techniques. Continuous support, when compared with no doula support, was significantly associated with shorter labors (weighted mean difference -1.64 hours, 95% confidence interval -2.3 to -.96) and decreased need for the use of any analgesia (odds ratio.64, 95% confidence interval.49 to.85), oxytocin (odds ratio.29, 95% confidence interval.20 to.40), forceps (odds ratio.43, 95% confidence interval.28 to.65), and cesarean sections (odds ratio.49, 95% confidence interval.37 to.65). Intermittent support was not significantly associated with any of the outcomes. Odds ratios differed between the 2 groups of studies for each outcome. Continuous support appears to have a greater beneficial impact on the 5 outcomes than intermittent support. Future clinical trials, however, will need to control for possible confounding influences. Implications for labor management are discussed.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
          American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
          Elsevier BV
          00029378
          May 1999
          May 1999
          : 180
          : 5
          : 1054-1059
          Article
          10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70594-6
          10329855
          e475f215-517e-47fd-9d60-ab356b7f520b
          © 1999

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article