Objective  To compare perinatal mortality and severe perinatal morbidity between planned home and planned hospital births, among low‐risk women who started their labour in primary care. Design  A nationwide cohort study. Setting  The entire Netherlands. Population  A total of 529 688 low‐risk women who were in primary midwife‐led care at the onset of labour. Of these, 321 307 (60.7%) intended to give birth at home, 163 261 (30.8%) planned to give birth in hospital and for 45 120 (8.5%), the intended place of birth was unknown. Methods  Analysis of national perinatal and neonatal registration data, over a period of 7 years. Logistic regression analysis was used to control for differences in baseline characteristics. Main outcome measures  Intrapartum death, intrapartum and neonatal death within 24 hours after birth, intrapartum and neonatal death within 7 days and neonatal admission to an intensive care unit. Results  No significant differences were found between planned home and planned hospital birth (adjusted relative risks and 95% confidence intervals: intrapartum death 0.97 (0.69 to 1.37), intrapartum death and neonatal death during the first 24 hours 1.02 (0.77 to 1.36), intrapartum death and neonatal death up to 7 days 1.00 (0.78 to 1.27), admission to neonatal intensive care unit 1.00 (0.86 to 1.16). Conclusions  This study shows that planning a home birth does not increase the risks of perinatal mortality and severe perinatal morbidity among low‐risk women, provided the maternity care system facilitates this choice through the availability of well‐trained midwives and through a good transportation and referral system.

Objective: To develop an international definition for hyperemesis gravidarum to assist in clinical diagnosis and harmonize hyperemesis gravidarum definition for study populations.Study design: A mixed-methods approach was used to identify potential hyperemesis gravidarum definition criteria (i.e. systematic review, semi-structured interviews and closed group sessions with patients and Project Steering Committee input). To reach consensus on the definition we used a webbased Delphi survey with two rounds, followed by a face-to-face consensus development meeting, held in Windsor UK, and a web-based consultation round, in which the provisional hyperemesis gravidarum definition was fed back to the stakeholders. Four stakeholder groups were identified 1) researchers; 2) women with lived experience of hyperemesis gravidarum and their families; 3) obstetric health professionals (obstetricians, gynecologists, midwives); and 4) other health professionals involved in care for women with hyperemesis gravidarum (general practitioners, dieticians, nurses). To reflect the opinions of the international community, stakeholders from countries in all global regions were invited to participate.Results: Twenty-one identified potential criteria entered the Delphi survey. Of the 277 stakeholders invited, 178 completed round one, and 125 (70%) also completed round two. Twenty stakeholders attended the consensus development meeting, representing all stakeholder groups. The consultation round was completed by 96 (54%) stakeholders, of which 92% agreed with the definition as presented. The consensus definition for hyperemesis gravidarum consisted of: start of symptoms in early pregnancy (before 16 weeks gestational age); nausea and vomiting, at least one of which severe; inability to eat and/ or drink normally; strongly limits daily living activities. Signs of dehydration were deemed contributory for the definition for hyperemesis gravidarum. Conclusions: The proposed definition for hyperemesis gravidarum will help clinical studies to achieve more uniformity, and ultimately increasing the value of evidence to inform patient care.

Objective To develop a core outcome set for trials on the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). Design Identification of outcomes is followed by a modified Delphi survey combined with a consensus development meeting and a consultation round. Setting An international web‐based survey combined with a consensus development meeting. Population Stakeholders including researchers; women with lived experience of HG and their families; obstetric health professionals; and other health professionals. Methods We used systematic review, semi‐structured patient interviews, closed group sessions and Steering Committee input to identify potential core outcomes. We conducted two web‐based survey rounds, followed by a face‐to‐face consensus development meeting and a web‐based consultation round. Main outcome measures A core outcome set for research on HG. Results Fifty‐six potential outcomes were identified. The modified Delphi process was completed by 125 stakeholders, the consensus development meeting by 20 stakeholders and the consultation round by 96 stakeholders. Consensus was reached in ten domains on 24 outcomes: nausea; vomiting; inability to tolerate oral fluids or food; dehydration; weight difference; electrolyte imbalance; intravenous fluid treatment; use of medication for hyperemesis gravidarum; hospital treatment; treatment compliance; patient satisfaction; daily functioning; maternal physical or mental or emotional wellbeing; short‐ and long‐term adverse effects of treatment; maternal death; pregnancy complications; considering or actually terminating a wanted pregnancy; preterm birth; small for gestational age; congenital anomalies; neonatal morbidity and offspring death). Conclusions This core outcome set will help standardise outcome reporting in HG trials. Tweetable abstract A core outcome set for treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum in order to create high‐quality evidence.

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveTo compare intrapartum and neonatal mortality in low-risk term women starting labour in midwife-led versus obstetrician-led care.Study designWe performed a propensity score matched study using data from our national perinatal register, completed with data from medical files. We studied women without major risk factors with singleton pregnancies who gave birth at term between 2005 and 2008 in the Amsterdam region of the Netherlands. Major risk factors comprised non-vertex position of the fetus, previous Caesarean birth, hypertension, (gestational) diabetes mellitus, post-term pregnancy (≥42 weeks), prolonged rupture of membranes (>24 hours), vaginal bleeding in the second half of pregnancy or induced labour. Groups were devided by midwife-led versus obstetrician-led care at the onset of labour. The primary outcome was intrapartum and neonatal (<28 days) mortality. Secondary outcomes included obstetric interventions, 5 min Apgar scores<7 and neonatal intensive care admittance for >24 hours.ResultsWe studied 57 396 women. Perinatal mortality occurred in 30 of 46 764 (0.64‰) women in midwife-led care and in 2 of 10 632 (0.19‰) women in obstetrician-led care (OR 3.4, 95% CI 0.82 to 14.3). A propensity score matched analysis in a 1:1 ratio with 10 632 women per group revealed an OR for perinatal mortality of 4.0 (95% CI 0.85 to 18.9).ConclusionAmong low-risk women, midwife-led care at the onset of labour was associated with a statistically non-significant higher mortality rate.

This review found no differences between the two types of monitoring (internal or external tocodynamometry) for any of the maternal or neonatal outcomes. Given that this review is based on three studies (N = 1945 women) of moderate quality, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of one form of tocodynamometry over another for women where intravenous oxytocin was administered for induction or augmentation of labour.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess whether induction of labour starting in the evening, coinciding with the endogenous circadian rhythm, improves the outcome of labour compared to induction of labour starting in the early morning, organised to coincide with office hours. BACKGROUND Description of the condition Induction of labour is a common intervention in obstetrical practice. In the western world, labour is induced for one in every four pregnant women, mostly for reasons related to the increased risk for the mother (eg, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, diabetes, prolonged pregnancy, prelabour rupture of the membranes) or child (eg, suspected fetal growth retardation). There are many different methods used to induce labour. In clinical situations medicinal and mechanical methods are used, including the sweeping of membranes, vaginal or intracervical prostaglandins, oestrogens, amniotomy with or without intravenous oxytocin, corticosteroids, misoprostol and extra amniotic Foley catheter (Alfirevic 2006;