Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25528045›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2014

Management of pregnant and postnatal women with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac disease using multi-disciplinary team models of care: a systematic review.

Debra Bick, Sarah Beake, Lucy Chappell, Khaled M Ismail, David R McCance, James S A Green, Cath Taylor

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Creating a Multidisciplinary Pregnancy Heart Team.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Debra BickKing's College London, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, James Clerk Maxwell Building, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK. debra.bick@kcl.ac.uk.
Sarah BeakeKing's College London, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, James Clerk Maxwell Building, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK. sarah.beake@kcl.ac.uk.
Lucy ChappellWomen's Health Academic Centre, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, 10th floor North Wing, St Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK. lucy.chappell@kcl.ac.uk.
Khaled M IsmailBirmingham Centre for Women's and Children's Health, School of Clinical & Experimental Medicine, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. k.ismail@bham.ac.uk.
David R McCanceRegional Centre for Endocrinology and Diabetes, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK. david.mccance@belfasttrust.hscni.net.
James S A GreenWhipps Cross Hospital, Barts NHS Trust, London, UK. james.green@bartshealth.nhs.uk.
Cath TaylorKing's College London, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, James Clerk Maxwell Building, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK. cath.taylor@kcl.ac.uk.
King's College London · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Ulster · GBWhipps Cross University Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMore women with an increased risk of poor pregnancy outcome due to pre-existing medical conditions are becoming pregnant. Although clinical care provided through multi-disciplinary team (MDT) working is recommended, little is known about the structure or working practices of different MDT models, their impact on maternal and infant outcomes or healthcare resources. The objectives of this review were to consider relevant international evidence to determine the most appropriate MDT models of care to manage complex medical conditions during and after pregnancy, with a specific focus on pre-existing diabetes or cardiac disease in high income country settings.

methodsQuantitative and qualitative evidence of MDT models of care for the management of pregnant/postnatal women with pre-existing diabetes and cardiac disease was considered. A search of the literature published between January 2002 - January 2014 was undertaken. Methodological quality was assessed using checklists developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Given limited primary and secondary research evidence, guidelines and opinion papers were included. Two independent reviewers conducted critical appraisal of included papers.

resultsNineteen papers were included from UK, Canada, USA, the Netherlands and Singapore. No studies were found which had compared MDT models for pregnant/postnatal women with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac disease. Two small retrospective studies reported better outcomes for women with cardiac disease if an MDT approach was used, although evidence to support this was limited. Due to study heterogeneity it was not possible to meta-analyse data. No evidence was identified of MDT management in the postnatal period or impacts of MDT working on healthcare resources.

conclusionsDespite widespread promotion of MDT models of care for pregnant and postnatal women with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac disease, there is a dearth of primary evidence to inform structure or working practices or beneficial impact on maternal and infant outcomes or healthcare resources. Primary research into if or how MDT models of care improve outcomes for women with complex pregnancies is urgently needed.

Indexed as

Pregnancy OutcomeDiabetes MellitusFemaleHeart DiseasesHumansModels, OrganizationalPatient Care TeamPostnatal CarePregnancyPregnancy Complications, CardiovascularPregnancy in Diabetics

Identifiers

PMID25528045
PMCPMC4296678
OpenAlexW2073097955

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.