Evidence‐based intrapartum care: evidence from the Cochrane library
- 1 December 1998
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
- Vol. 63 (S1) , S97-S102
- https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7292(98)00190-8
Abstract
Objective: To describe the concepts on which systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are based, and to explore the evidence for effectiveness of clinical interventions during labor and delivery. Methods: Review of systematic reviews of interventions during labor and delivery, published in the Cochrane Library. Results: Some commonly applied clinical interventions are supported by evidence; others are not. Conclusion: It is possible to classify interventions during labor and delivery according to their effectiveness, to improve clinical care, identify priorities where resources are scarce, and help set clinical research agendas.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Large Trials vs Meta-analysis of Smaller TrialsJAMA, 1996
- Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviewsThe Lancet, 1996
- Antenatal corticosteroid therapy: A meta-analysis of the randomized trials, 1972 to 1994American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1995
- Which anticonvulsant for women with eclampsia? Evidence from the Collaborative Eclampsia TrialThe Lancet, 1995
- Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth: A SynopsisBirth, 1995
- Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits to evidence-based medicineThe Lancet, 1995
- Empirical Evidence of BiasJAMA, 1995
- Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda.BMJ, 1992
- Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials? (Transcript of an oral presentation, modified by the editors)Statistics in Medicine, 1987
- Influence on clinical practice of routine intra-partum fetal monitoring.BMJ, 1975