Recent meta-analysis is misleading
Delamothe queries why the authors of an American meta-analysis on planned home and hospital birth shifted focus from perinatal mortality to neonatal mortality "despite having relevant data for these calculations on only 9% of their total sample." 1 2 The authors found no difference in peri...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BMJ 2010-09, Vol.341 (7771), p.473-473 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 473 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7771 |
| container_start_page | 473 |
| container_title | BMJ |
| container_volume | 341 |
| creator | Daviss, Betty-Anne Johnson, Kenneth C |
| description | Delamothe queries why the authors of an American meta-analysis on planned home and hospital birth shifted focus from perinatal mortality to neonatal mortality "despite having relevant data for these calculations on only 9% of their total sample." 1 2 The authors found no difference in perinatal mortality between planned home... |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bmj.c4699 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1909600487</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>20766264</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>20766264</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b261t-621c7cdb33f923328a47cbfd9a96fdf854cc2238468f730a158e54f2fc51f7403</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtLAzEUhYMoWGoX_gChqBsXU_N-LGXwVWpFq25DJpPIjJ1OTaZg_72pI-6EC3dxPs45HACOEZwgRPhl0dQTS7lSe2CAKJcZk4TsgwFUTGUSEXkIRjHWEEJMhFScDcDps7Nu1Y0b15nMrMxyG6s4TtdUcelMWa3ej8CBN8voRr9_CF5vrl_yu2z2eHufX82yAnPUZRwjK2xZEOIVJgRLQ4UtfKmM4r70klFrMSYy9fKCQIOYdIx67C1DXlBIhuCs912H9nPjYqfrdhNSpaiRgopDSKVI1EVP2dDGGJzX61A1Jmw1gnq3gk4r6J8VEnvSs3Xs2vAHYig4x5wmPev1Knbu60834UNzQQTT87dck-lT_rCYLvQ88ec9v4v4P_Yb3_JyKg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1909600487</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Recent meta-analysis is misleading</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><creator>Daviss, Betty-Anne ; Johnson, Kenneth C</creator><creatorcontrib>Daviss, Betty-Anne ; Johnson, Kenneth C</creatorcontrib><description>Delamothe queries why the authors of an American meta-analysis on planned home and hospital birth shifted focus from perinatal mortality to neonatal mortality "despite having relevant data for these calculations on only 9% of their total sample." 1 2 The authors found no difference in perinatal mortality between planned home...</description><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8138</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-5833</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1756-1833</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c4699</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><subject>Health outcomes ; Health risk assessment ; Home births ; HOME v HOSPITAL BIRTH ; Meta analysis ; Mortality ; Neonatal mortality ; Reviews</subject><ispartof>BMJ, 2010-09, Vol.341 (7771), p.473-473</ispartof><rights>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2010</rights><rights>2010 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright: 2010 © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b261t-621c7cdb33f923328a47cbfd9a96fdf854cc2238468f730a158e54f2fc51f7403</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4699.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4699.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,314,776,780,799,3183,23550,27901,27902,57992,58225,77343,77374</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Daviss, Betty-Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Kenneth C</creatorcontrib><title>Recent meta-analysis is misleading</title><title>BMJ</title><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><description>Delamothe queries why the authors of an American meta-analysis on planned home and hospital birth shifted focus from perinatal mortality to neonatal mortality "despite having relevant data for these calculations on only 9% of their total sample." 1 2 The authors found no difference in perinatal mortality between planned home...</description><subject>Health outcomes</subject><subject>Health risk assessment</subject><subject>Home births</subject><subject>HOME v HOSPITAL BIRTH</subject><subject>Meta analysis</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Neonatal mortality</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>1468-5833</issn><issn>1756-1833</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEtLAzEUhYMoWGoX_gChqBsXU_N-LGXwVWpFq25DJpPIjJ1OTaZg_72pI-6EC3dxPs45HACOEZwgRPhl0dQTS7lSe2CAKJcZk4TsgwFUTGUSEXkIRjHWEEJMhFScDcDps7Nu1Y0b15nMrMxyG6s4TtdUcelMWa3ej8CBN8voRr9_CF5vrl_yu2z2eHufX82yAnPUZRwjK2xZEOIVJgRLQ4UtfKmM4r70klFrMSYy9fKCQIOYdIx67C1DXlBIhuCs912H9nPjYqfrdhNSpaiRgopDSKVI1EVP2dDGGJzX61A1Jmw1gnq3gk4r6J8VEnvSs3Xs2vAHYig4x5wmPev1Knbu60834UNzQQTT87dck-lT_rCYLvQ88ec9v4v4P_Yb3_JyKg</recordid><startdate>20100904</startdate><enddate>20100904</enddate><creator>Daviss, Betty-Anne</creator><creator>Johnson, Kenneth C</creator><general>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</general><general>British Medical Association</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100904</creationdate><title>Recent meta-analysis is misleading</title><author>Daviss, Betty-Anne ; Johnson, Kenneth C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b261t-621c7cdb33f923328a47cbfd9a96fdf854cc2238468f730a158e54f2fc51f7403</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Health outcomes</topic><topic>Health risk assessment</topic><topic>Home births</topic><topic>HOME v HOSPITAL BIRTH</topic><topic>Meta analysis</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Neonatal mortality</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Daviss, Betty-Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Kenneth C</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Daviss, Betty-Anne</au><au>Johnson, Kenneth C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Recent meta-analysis is misleading</atitle><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><date>2010-09-04</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>341</volume><issue>7771</issue><spage>473</spage><epage>473</epage><pages>473-473</pages><issn>0959-8138</issn><eissn>1468-5833</eissn><eissn>1756-1833</eissn><abstract>Delamothe queries why the authors of an American meta-analysis on planned home and hospital birth shifted focus from perinatal mortality to neonatal mortality "despite having relevant data for these calculations on only 9% of their total sample." 1 2 The authors found no difference in perinatal mortality between planned home...</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</pub><doi>10.1136/bmj.c4699</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0959-8138 |
| ispartof | BMJ, 2010-09, Vol.341 (7771), p.473-473 |
| issn | 0959-8138 1468-5833 1756-1833 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1909600487 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; BMJ Journals - NESLi2 |
| subjects | Health outcomes Health risk assessment Home births HOME v HOSPITAL BIRTH Meta analysis Mortality Neonatal mortality Reviews |
| title | Recent meta-analysis is misleading |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T01%3A18%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Recent%20meta-analysis%20is%20misleading&rft.jtitle=BMJ&rft.au=Daviss,%20Betty-Anne&rft.date=2010-09-04&rft.volume=341&rft.issue=7771&rft.spage=473&rft.epage=473&rft.pages=473-473&rft.issn=0959-8138&rft.eissn=1468-5833&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmj.c4699&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E20766264%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1909600487&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=20766264&rfr_iscdi=true |