Despite efforts by obstetrical organizations and other groups over the years to reduce cesarean surgeries, the procedure continues to be performed in approximately one-in-three births in the United States. The study described here explores the possible benefits of increased hydration during labor and finds, via a well-designed meta-analysis, that giving low-risk, first-time mothers more fluids via intravenous (IV) therapy during labor reduces the number of cesarean sections, as well as the overall length of labor.
The news release offers readers a summary of the findings without much detail and, importantly, fails to note that the women included in the analysis cannot be generalized to all women in labor. The release does specify the absence of conflicts of interest among the principal investigators, an important transparency component.
Cesarean surgeries are invasive, complicated, and fraught with possible repercussions. They are life-saving when necessary, but critics have long argued that their use in the United States far exceeds normal parameters. Studies such as the one described here, if supported by additional research to explore the applicability to a wider general population, can contribute to better decision making on when to perform cesarean procedures.
Cost does not make an appearance in this release. The concept may seem trivial when considering the cheap ingredients in saline fluid, but little about American medical care is cheap.
Another important consideration is the cost of cesarean section compared with that of vaginal delivery, which is not addressed in the release.
Although the release offers a clear, succinct statement of the benefits provided by increased IV fluids, it provides no numbers describing the magnitude of those benefits. The research report on which the release is based found that the differences in number of cesarean procedures and in the duration of labor were real but relatively modest. For example, a c-section was deemed necessary for 12.5% of women who got higher levels of hydration and for 18.1% of those who received lower levels of fluids during labor. Length of labor declined by about an hour, a statistically significant but still modest clinically significant outcome.
An important potential risk of pulmonary edema (fluid build-up in the lungs) due to higher levels of intravenous hydration is not mentioned in the release, although it was reported in the article.
Additionally, the release neglects to explain that the only studies pooled for this analysis were those performed on low-risk, first-time mothers whose labor was not induced. The original research report notes that the effectiveness and safety of giving increased fluids to women who had given birth previously, whose labor was induced or who have other medical issues, is unclear. This is an important caveat that belongs in the news release.
The release explains that the data for these 1,215 women come from seven studies. But it didn’t note an important strength of those studies: they were all randomized, controlled trials. And it also omits a couple of worrying limitations: The combined sample size is still relatively small and, as explained in the original research report, only one of the studies was blinded.
The release doesn’t engage in disease mongering. It notes that cesarean surgery remains ubiquitous despite ongoing attempts by obstetrics organizations to reduce its incidence and, as a result, its accompanying risks. That’s important context.
The release doesn’t note funding sources but the research report indicates that the scientists received no financial support, a situation not uncommon when analyzing existing data. The release does explicitly state that none of the investigators has a conflict of interest.
The analysis compared increased levels of hydration during labor with levels used in “general practice in the United States.” That’s explained in the release.
The release suggests that some obstetricians already do — and more should — provide higher levels of fluids during labor.
The nature of this meta-analysis makes it clear that the effects of increased hydration have been the subject of past studies. What is new here is the meta-analytical approach.
Both the text wording and a quote from the lead researcher suggest that the results of this meta-analysis are applicable to all women in labor, a conclusion that is not supported by the original research report. Additionally, the source declares, early in the release, that the results of the analysis “are compelling and strongly argue for a change in practice.” Again, the limitations of the meta-analysis do not seem to warrant such prescriptive language.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Alyssa Wolf
March 28, 2017 at 8:05 amAllow women to drink on their own as they need during labor! Not really being studied in this research article but another alternative to IV fluids or not allowing liquids.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like