Was the Dutch home birth trial properly registered and performed?

Abstract

conisation and preterm delivery. We found a stronger association between a deep cone and preterm delivery, and also two cones and preterm delivery. We have not been able to think of any confounding factor that would cause this relationship. We can conceive of only two explanations for these findings: (1) the more you remove of the cervical canal (a deep cone or two cones) the higher the risk of preterm delivery; or (2) the severity or persistence of the CIN in itself increases the risk of preterm delivery.Despite our inability to demonstrate causality between cone biopsy and preterm delivery, it is a fact that we, as well as many others, have demonstrated an increased risk of preterm delivery in women with severe dysplasia treated by conisation. We consider that these women should be counselled according to this knowledge in subsequent pregnancies. We did not intend to undermine in any way the secondary prevention of cervical cancer, but we were hoping to encourage the primary prevention of CIN by the introduction of national vaccination programmes, so that in future, conisations with all their attendant risks will no longer be necessary. j References 1 Onwude J. Obstertic outcomes and management after cervical conisation for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BJOG 2010;117:1159-61. 2 Ørtoft G, Henriksen TB, Hansen ES, Petersen KL. After conisation of the cervix, the perinatal mortality due to preterm delivery increases in subsequent pregnancy.

Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth

“…Six references were retrieved by the electronic searches for the first version of this review (Olsen 1998). In 2009 an additional reference (Hendrix 2009b) was identified and characterised as relevant to be mentioned in the introduction or discussion section; on closer investigation it was clarified that it referred to a not previously identified trial (Olsen 2010). Thus, two studies met the eligibility criteria for the review.…”

Was the Dutch home birth trial properly registered and performed?

“…In a Letter to the Editor, Ole Olsen 1 asked why there was a discrepancy between the title and the description of the study in the trial registration number (NCT00237601). As we described in our paper, 2 the study was originally started as a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for place of birth.…”