|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||The trials and tribulations of intrapartum studies|
|Citation:||Hundley V & Cheyne H (2004) The trials and tribulations of intrapartum studies. Midwifery, 20 (1), pp. 27-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-6138%2803%2900050-0|
|Abstract:||Objective: to review the reporting of randomised controlled trials for intrapartum interventions. Methods: this was a literature search addressing the period from the publication of the CONSORT statement i.e. 1996–2002. Databases searched: Medline and CINAHL. Search terms: pregnancy, low-risk, normal, intrapartum, labour and labor. Inclusion criteria: randomised controlled trials reported in English which involved women experiencing: normal or ‘low risk’ pregnancy; intrapartum interventions; women who had a spontaneous onset of labour. Data extraction: timing of consent and randomisation, proportion of eligible women recruited, ‘losses’ to the study. Included Studies fourteen published and one unpublished study that fitted the inclusion criteria were identified. Three studies were subsequently excluded because of a lack of information about the method and a further study was excluded due to its small sample size. Findings: three strategies for recruitment and randomisation for intrapartum studies were reported in the literature: antenatal recruitment and randomisation; consent and randomisation conducted on admission in labour or at the time of the intervention; staged recruitment and randomisation, which may be two- or three-staged. Different study designs have done much to improve the appearance of intrapartum studies and reduce post-randomisation losses. However, the problem of bias in RCTs is not limited to attrition alone and these designs may simply be moving the problem to an earlier stage in the study resulting in selection bias and limiting generalisability. Conclusions: the importance of accurate documentation of numbers at all stages in the research process is highlighted, in particular the number of eligible people not recruited, to allow the reader to assess the generalisability of the study.|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author; you can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|Trials and Tribulations.pdf||Fulltext - Published Version||203.92 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Embargo until 2999-12-06 Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.