2002
DOI: 10.1515/jpm.2002.034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The midwife factor in obstetric procedures and neonatal outcome

Abstract: were investigated. The following data were collected continuously over the whole observation period with a computer assisted database: mode of delivery, pH of umbilical artery, Apgar score, birth weight, gestational age, maternal age, identity and age of the midwife, stillbirths and deliveries before arrival.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 20 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Reason for exclusion Davis-Floyd and Davis (1997) Excluded No indication that the participants were 'experts' Guiver (2003) Excluded No indication that the participants were 'experts' Shallow (1999) Excluded No indication that the participants were 'experts' Konstantiniuk et al (2002) Excluded Only quantitative data Stamp (1997) Excluded Only quantitative data Patrick (2002) Excluded Only quantitative data Alexander et al (2002) Excluded Specific to ventouse practitioners Butterworth and Bishop (1995) Excluded Only 13% of participants maternity care practitioners Kennedy et al (2003) Excluded Meta-synthesis of American studies (one relevant paper included in this review) Sookhoo and Biott (2002) Excluded Insufficient data to assess quality Sleutel (2000) Included Kennedy (2000) Included Berg and Dahlberg (2001) Included Lundgren and Dahlberg (2002) Included Kennedy (2002) Included James et al (2003) Included Kennedy (2004) Included Key to quality rating: A, no or few flaws. The study credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability 33 is high; B, some flaws, unlikely to affect the credibility, transferability, dependability, and/or confirmability of the study; C, some flaws which may affect the credibility, transferability, dependability, and/or confirmability of the study; D, significant flaws which are very likely to affect the credibility, transferability, dependability, and/or confirmability of the study.…”
Section: Final Decisionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reason for exclusion Davis-Floyd and Davis (1997) Excluded No indication that the participants were 'experts' Guiver (2003) Excluded No indication that the participants were 'experts' Shallow (1999) Excluded No indication that the participants were 'experts' Konstantiniuk et al (2002) Excluded Only quantitative data Stamp (1997) Excluded Only quantitative data Patrick (2002) Excluded Only quantitative data Alexander et al (2002) Excluded Specific to ventouse practitioners Butterworth and Bishop (1995) Excluded Only 13% of participants maternity care practitioners Kennedy et al (2003) Excluded Meta-synthesis of American studies (one relevant paper included in this review) Sookhoo and Biott (2002) Excluded Insufficient data to assess quality Sleutel (2000) Included Kennedy (2000) Included Berg and Dahlberg (2001) Included Lundgren and Dahlberg (2002) Included Kennedy (2002) Included James et al (2003) Included Kennedy (2004) Included Key to quality rating: A, no or few flaws. The study credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability 33 is high; B, some flaws, unlikely to affect the credibility, transferability, dependability, and/or confirmability of the study; C, some flaws which may affect the credibility, transferability, dependability, and/or confirmability of the study; D, significant flaws which are very likely to affect the credibility, transferability, dependability, and/or confirmability of the study.…”
Section: Final Decisionmentioning
confidence: 99%