Recent meta-analysis is misleading

doi:10.1136/bmj.c4699

From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients
We are open for entries!

Online learning

BMJ Learning

High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more

Courses and Qualifications

BMJ Masterclasses

BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more

Exam Preparation

The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more

onExamination

Search all BMJ comment articles:

From

Limit by

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

Betty-Anne Daviss, adjunct professor1,
Kenneth C Johnson, adjunct professor2

¹Women’s and Gender Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
²Faculty of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1H 8M5

badaviss{at}hotmail.com

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 and planned hospital births when they included the Dutch study, …