[X] Close
You are about to erase all the values you have customized, search history, page format, etc.
Click here to RESET all values       Click here to GO BACK without resetting any value
Item 1 of about 1
1. Wilson A, Gallos ID, Plana N, Lissauer D, Khan KS, Zamora J, MacArthur C, Coomarasamy A: Effectiveness of strategies incorporating training and support of traditional birth attendants on perinatal and maternal mortality: meta-analysis. BMJ; 2011;343:d7102
PubMed Health. DARE review .

  • [Source] The source of this record is MEDLINE®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
  • [Title] Effectiveness of strategies incorporating training and support of traditional birth attendants on perinatal and maternal mortality: meta-analysis.
  • OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of strategies incorporating training and support of traditional birth attendants on the outcomes of perinatal, neonatal, and maternal death in developing countries.
  • DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis.
  • DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, the Allied and Complementary Medicine database, British Nursing Index, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, BioMed Central, PsycINFO, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database, African Index Medicus, Web of Science, Reproductive Health Library, and Science Citation Index (from inception to April 2011), without language restrictions.
  • Search terms were "birth attend*", "traditional midwife", "lay birth attendant", "dais", and "comadronas".
  • Review methods We selected randomised and non-randomised controlled studies with outcomes of perinatal, neonatal, and maternal mortality.
  • Two independent reviewers undertook data extraction.
  • We pooled relative risks separately for the randomised and non-randomised controlled studies, using a random effects model.
  • RESULTS: We identified six cluster randomised controlled trials (n=138 549) and seven non-randomised controlled studies (n=72 225) that investigated strategies incorporating training and support of traditional birth attendants.
  • All six randomised controlled trials found a reduction in adverse perinatal outcomes; our meta-analysis showed significant reductions in perinatal death (relative risk 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.88, P<0.001; number needed to treat 35, 24 to 70) and neonatal death (0.79, 0.69 to 0.88, P<0.001; 98, 66 to 170).
  • Meta-analysis of the non-randomised studies also showed a significant reduction in perinatal mortality (0.70, 0.57 to 0.84, p<0.001; 48, 32 to 96) and neonatal mortality (0.61, 0.48 to 0.75, P<0.001; 96, 65 to 168).
  • Six studies reported on maternal mortality and our meta-analysis showed a non-significant reduction (three randomised trials, relative risk 0.79, 0.53 to 1.05, P=0.12; three non-randomised studies, 0.80, 0.44 to 1.15, P=0.26).
  • CONCLUSION: Perinatal and neonatal deaths are significantly reduced with strategies incorporating training and support of traditional birth attendants.
  • [MeSH-major] Maternal Mortality. Midwifery. Perinatal Mortality
  • [MeSH-minor] Developing Countries. Female. Global Health. Humans. Infant Mortality. Infant, Newborn. Pregnancy

  • [Email] Email this result item
    Email the results to the following email address:   [X] Close
  • [Cites] N Engl J Med. 2005 May 19;352(20):2091-9 [15901862.001]
  • [Cites] Lancet. 1997 Dec 20-27;350(9094):1810-4 [9428252.001]
  • [Cites] Afr J Reprod Health. 2005 Apr;9(1):113-22 [16104660.001]
  • [Cites] Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(3):CD005460 [17636799.001]
  • [Cites] Lancet. 2008 Jun 7;371(9628):1936-44 [18539225.001]
  • [Cites] Bull World Health Organ. 2008 Jun;86(6):452-9 [18568274.001]
  • [Cites] Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Oct;107 Suppl 1:S89-112 [19815200.001]
  • [Cites] N Engl J Med. 2010 Feb 18;362(7):614-23 [20164485.001]
  • [Cites] Lancet. 2010 Apr 3;375(9721):1193-202 [20207412.001]
  • [Cites] Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(11):CD007754 [21069697.001]
  • [Cites] Lancet. 2011 Jan 29;377(9763):403-12 [21239052.001]
  • [Cites] BMJ. 2011;342:d346 [21292711.001]
  • [Cites] Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005 Jul;90(1):51-5 [15919088.001]
  • [Cites] Lancet. 1999 Dec 4;354(9194):1955-61 [10622298.001]
  • [Cites] J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001 Jul-Aug;46(4):210-6 [11603632.001]
  • [Cites] Trop J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988;1(1):44-7 [12179276.001]
  • [Cites] BMJ. 2004 Mar 20;328(7441):702-8 [15031246.001]
  • [Cites] J Trop Med Hyg. 1990 Feb;93(1):58-66 [2304134.001]
  • [Cites] Hygie. 1991 Mar;10(1):32-7 [2040509.001]
  • [Cites] Midwifery. 1994 Sep;10(3):142-7 [7815953.001]
  • [Cites] Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1995 Jun;48 Suppl:S83-94 [7672178.001]
  • [CommentIn] BMJ. 2012;344:e365 [22257977.001]
  • (PMID = 22134967.001).
  • [ISSN] 1756-1833
  • [Journal-full-title] BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
  • [ISO-abbreviation] BMJ
  • [Language] eng
  • [Publication-type] Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review
  • [Publication-country] England
  • [Other-IDs] NLM/ PMC3228291
  •  go-up   go-down


Advertisement





Advertisement