Absolutely fascinating story complete with pictures: a Nigerian couple has a pale-skinned baby with blond hair and blue eyes. She’s their third child, and the other two are the same color as the parents, namely fairly dark-brown. No mix-up — the woman had a C-section, and the baby was this color at birth. Neither of the parents knows of any white ancestors, but it seems that they both must have had one which ended up working its way through the genes unnoticed, until one baby received both genes for light skin color from the parents at the same time — rather like my brother’s red hair when there are no red-heads in either family for as far back as we know. Genetics is absolutely fascinating. One race, people: the human race. Sure there are different characteristics that are predominant in one group of people over another (just as you probably all know some family who all have beak noses or skinny faces or broad shoulders or whatever), but we are not fundamentally different from each other. This is one more example that demonstrates that.
That was the conclusion of Dr. Nicholas Fogelson about the much-publicized recent meta-analysis on home-birth, in a comment on Science & Sensibility’s post about it. [Honestly, I didn’t know that the AJOG was so poorly respected. Makes me rethink what studies I’d look at, if it was published there.] In the S&S post, Amy Romano questions whether the meta-analysis was even appropriate, in light of the huge de Jonge study of over 300,000 planned home births in the Netherlands. She writes,
Lack of statistical power could not possibly be the rationale for conducting a meta-analysis on the safety of home birth. [The de Jonge study] contributed 94% of the data on planned home birth in the meta-analysis (321,307 of 342,056 planned home births). That study found virtually identical rates of neonatal death in both the planned home and planned hospital births, with relatively narrow confidence intervals.
The blog “Birth Sense” has two posts on this study: a prologue of sorts and then a discussion of the 12 studies included in the meta-analysis. And despite Dr. Fogelson’s comment that AJOG is a “low-impact” journal, many news sources apparently didn’t get that memo, and had no problem trying to make a huge impact with the sensational headlines that “home birth is three times as deadly as hospital birth.”
I have read numerous blog posts and news articles about this study and will include links to them below, but I want to comment on some things. First, since the study isn’t going to be released for a few more months, I haven’t read it (I know it’s available by request, and I presume for a price or if you have a subscription), so I’m not sure what I can add to what those who have read it have said. In some ways, what I’ve read has raised more questions than answers. The main question is, what were the inclusion criteria? From some sources, I’ve discovered that the original study had to have been published in English (a common enough restriction — gotta make sure the doctors don’t get bogged down in any bad translations from reading foreign language studies!), and also to studies that reported outcomes of mothers and babies in both home and hospital births (apparently the reason why the Johnson & Daviss 2005 article on CPM births, published in the BMJ was not included — they didn’t have a hospital “control group”). But I wonder, did they not have any exclusion criteria for the size? They included one study that had 5 women in each group — a total of 10 women studied! If I may say so, “Good grief, Charlie Brown!”
Additionally, they included the Pang study, which itself was flawed, in that it reported not only planned home-births (with or without a qualified attendant), but it also included unplanned home-births — this despite a title that declares that it looked at planned home births. Nor was the study limited to the “term” period, but included births as premature as 34 weeks. Since I don’t have the meta-analysis in front of me, I can’t say how heavily it influenced the conclusion, but “garbage in, garbage out” — if the data going into the study is wrong, you can’t reach the right conclusion.
In all meta-analyses I’ve read, there has always been a discussion of inclusion and exclusion factors; if there are others besides the ones I’ve mentioned above, I’d like to know — out of curiosity, if nothing else.
Some of the articles I’ve read have touched on problems researchers may have in reconciling different studies, which may all have different designs, or look at different populations, etc. Again, I don’t have the study, so I don’t know if Wax and associates looked at all the different factors and did an appropriate exclusion or analysis of differing studies. Some differences among studies that I can think of that might need some statistical calculation or exclusion of some births (which may or may not have been included in any of the cited studies), include prospective vs. retrospective study design; inclusion of term, preterm or post-term births; cross-over (women planning a home birth who transferred to the hospital, or women planning a home birth who gave birth precipitously outside of the hospital); whether babies with congenital anomalies were excluded; whether the mothers were properly matched in the groups — same general age, income, health, parity, etc.; whether twins or breech or post-term babies were included or excluded (many studies are limited by design to “singleton vertex babies from 37-42 weeks gestation”); cause of death (for example, excluding accidental deaths by smothering or car wreck would be a good idea, I’d think, if possible); whether there was a trained birth attendant; quality of the original study, and undoubtedly many other things I can’t think of.
One of the confounding factors that some of the articles I’ve read, is that some of the studies examined only the early neonatal period (up to 7 days), while others examined the full neonatal period (up to 28 days). Which reminds me of another factor I should have included in the paragraph above — perinatal deaths including stillbirths, and also possibly intrapartum deaths. Several of the writers have noted that the largest study, the Dutch study, was not included in the actual analysis of the most loudly trumpeted conclusion, namely, that home birth carries a 3x death risk for babies when compared to hospital birth. The largest study which had almost 95% of all of the births in all of the studies, and showed no difference for neonatal death, was excluded for the purposes of neonatal death. It seems that it is because that study only went up to 7 days. Was there not some sort of statistical analysis that could be done to extrapolate deaths that may have occurred from days 8-28, so that this study could have been included? Or, an analysis that could have excluded deaths from 8-28 days in the other studies? As I said, I have more questions than answers. I’d love to read the study for myself (and the Birth Sense link has links to all 12 of the included studies — some of them are abstracts but some of them are the full studies, so I may start by reading those), but I wonder if any of the questions I have would be answered if I did read it.
Now for the links that I read, in addition to those I cited above (some of them include other links to other articles, as well) — obviously, most of them are going to be favorable to the “this meta-analysis is junk” viewpoint, but not all of them are:
- Birth Activist
- CBC News
- Globe & Mail
- AJOG abstract
- Big Push for Midwives‘ press release
- Jennifer Block‘s blog post
- the ACNM press release
- The Unnecesarean’s blog post — make sure you read the comments for even more information and insights on the study, particularly Janelle & WendyCPM
- Updated to add the CIMS press release
Now for some links to other home-birth related stuff that is not about this flawed study:
- The Unnecesarean’s blog post on a new study in this month’s issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology that says it’s important to distinguish between planned and unplanned home births [and I’m just in the mood right now, due to lack of sleep, to say cheekily, “and next, they’ll tell us that water is wet, and the sun is hot!” :-)]; but seriously, it’s because many times “unplanned” home births are to women with known risk factors that may cause problems with either themselves or their babies
- the NHS write-up of the de Jonge (Dutch) home-birth study
- “High Tech vs. Nature’s Way,” an article from Minneapolis-St. Paul
- The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia “Resource Manual” on planned home births
Ahhh, now I can close out some tabs on my browser.
Oh, and Dr. Amy, I’m pretty sure you’ve been waiting for me to write this up since I know you read me (not to mention you probably have “home birth” on your Google Alerts, and probably regularly add other keywords to make sure you don’t miss any internet discussions), so if/when you comment, just remember that you have to stay on topic. No cut-and-paste jobs like you usually do, m’kay? Oh, and before you bluster that the studies which showed that home birth is safe only in the countries of the study (like the Netherlands and Canada), because of how their midwives are integrated into the health system, I want you to answer a question: if that is true, why don’t you try to integrate midwives into the health system in America, rather than trying to elbow them out? That would solve that problem. 🙂
Filed under: studies & stuff | Tagged: big push, birth studies, birth study, certified nurse-midwife, childbirth studies, childbirth study, home birth, homebirth, midwife, midwives, wax, wax study | 3 Comments »
I’ve been on vacation… where there is great cell-phone coverage (thankfully!) but we have had no internet, unless we drove to the local library. So I’m behind. Very, very far behind. I got to the library a couple of times briefly to check my email (but I still have almost #200 unread emails on a secondary email account — most of them undoubtedly need very little attention beyond marking them as read and deleting them), but didn’t read any of the blogs I keep up with. Apparently, I keep up with a lot of blogs. I also haven’t been on facebook for the past couple of weeks, so I hope I haven’t missed anything important on there. But if I did — oh, well, I guess I’ll find out about it eventually. Or not.
It was a 15-hour drive each way, and we did it in one shot (both driving there and driving back), getting in this morning at 1 a.m. My lonely cat woke me up around 6 a.m., while my kids woke up not too long thereafter. You’d better believe I took a nap! And I realized about 5 p.m., as I was heading out to get groceries that I was dehydrated, so I got a gallon of water at the store and drank nearly half of it before coming home, and feel much better. In fact, I think that’s why I am able to be awake right now at nearly 11 p.m. Although, maybe it’s the “charge” I get from having my internet connection back. 😀
I heard today that there was a new study, a meta-analysis of studies, released on home-birth purporting to show a 3x mortality rate for babies born at home compared to those born at hospitals. I’m still reading my blogs and am still in June [oh, yeah, my router wouldn’t work either when I came back, so my husband got dibs on the internet connection when he was awake, so most of today I was still computer-less], so I haven’t read the first blog post about it, and am guessing I’m about half-way done with my blog catch-up. I expect that I will come across multiple viral posts about the study very soon, and know that the “Birth Sense” blog apparently did a very good review of the study and why it’s flawed.
Yeah, it was fun relaxing on the beach, watching the kids swim in the water and play on the sand, doing over 150 Sudoku puzzles and getting a nice tan (and not too much of a burn — I call it “getting enough Vitamin D”), but I am very anxious to read the study and posts about the study, and am bummed that I missed it. Tomorrow is another day. Maybe I’ll catch up then. 🙂