↓ Skip to main content

Planned early delivery versus expectant management for hypertensive disorders from 34 weeks gestation to term

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Planned early delivery versus expectant management for hypertensive disorders from 34 weeks gestation to term
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009273.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Cluver, Natalia Novikova, Corine M Koopmans, Helen M West

Abstract

Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy are significant contributors to maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. These disorders include well-controlled chronic hypertension, gestational hypertension (pregnancy-induced hypertension) and mild pre-eclampsia. The definitive treatment for these disorders is planned early delivery and the alternative is to manage the pregnancy expectantly if severe uncontrolled hypertension is not present, with close maternal and fetal monitoring. There are benefits and risks associated with both, so it is important to establish the safest option. To assess the benefits and risks of a policy of planned early delivery versus a policy of expectant management in pregnant women with hypertensive disorders, at or near term (from 34 weeks onwards). We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (12 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised trials of a policy of planned early delivery (by induction of labour or by caesarean section) compared with a policy of delayed delivery ("expectant management") for women with hypertensive disorders from 34 weeks' gestation. Cluster-randomised trials would have been eligible for inclusion in this review, but we found none.Studies using a quasi-randomised design are not eligible for inclusion in this review. Similarly, studies using a cross-over design are not eligible for inclusion, because they are not a suitable study design for investigating hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and risks of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We included five studies (involving 1819 women) in this review.There was a lower risk of composite maternal mortality and severe morbidity for women randomised to receive planned early delivery (risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.83, two studies, 1459 women (evidence graded high)). There were no clear differences between subgroups based on our subgroup analysis by gestational age, gestational week or condition. Planned early delivery was associated with lower risk of HELLP syndrome (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.93, 1628 women; three studies) and severe renal impairment (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.92, 100 women, one study).There was not enough information to draw any conclusions about the effects on composite infant mortality and severe morbidity. We observed a high level of heterogeneity between the two studies in this analysis (two studies, 1459 infants, I(2) = 87%, Tau(2) = 0.98), so we did not pool data in meta-analysis. There were no clear differences between subgroups based on our subgroup analysis by gestational age, gestational week or condition. Planned early delivery was associated with higher levels of respiratory distress syndrome (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.20 to 4.18, three studies, 1511 infants), and NICU admission (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.40, four studies, 1585 infants).There was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07, 1728 women, four studies, evidence graded moderate), or in the duration of hospital stay for the mother after delivery of the baby (mean difference (MD) -0.16 days, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.15, two studies, 925 women, evidence graded moderate) or for the baby (MD -0.20 days, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.17, one study, 756 infants, evidence graded moderate).Two fairly large, well-designed trials with overall low risk of bias contributed the majority of the evidence. Other studies were at low or unclear risk of bias. No studies attempted to blind participants or clinicians to group allocation, potentially introducing bias as women and staff would have been aware of the intervention and this may have affected aspects of care and decision-making.The level of evidence was graded high (composite maternal mortality and morbidity), moderate (caesarean section, duration of hospital stay after delivery for mother, and duration of hospital stay after delivery for baby) or low (composite infant mortality and morbidity). Where the evidence was downgraded, it was mostly because the confidence intervals were wide, crossing both the line of no effect and appreciable benefit or harm. For women suffering from hypertensive disorders of pregnancy after 34 weeks, planned early delivery is associated with less composite maternal morbidity and mortality. There is no clear difference in the composite outcome of infant mortality and severe morbidity; however, this is based on limited data (from two trials) assessing all hypertensive disorders as one group.Further studies are needed to look at the different types of hypertensive diseases and the optimal timing of delivery for these conditions. These studies should also include infant and maternal morbidity and mortality outcomes, caesarean section, duration of hospital stay after delivery for mother and duration of hospital stay after delivery for baby.An individual patient meta-analysis on the data currently available would provide further information on the outcomes of the different types of hypertensive disease encountered in pregnancy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 181 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 19%
Unspecified 31 17%
Researcher 24 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Other 49 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 44%
Unspecified 43 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 14%
Psychology 12 7%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Other 15 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,961,225
of 12,801,247 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,737
of 10,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,430
of 340,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#122
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,801,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.