Summary of findings 2. Combination of interventions versus no intervention.
| Comparison 2: Combination of interventions versus no intervention | ||||||
| Patient or population: improving antenatal care coverage and health outcomes among pregnant women Setting: Eastern China, Honduras, India, Laos, Malawi, Pakistan, South Africa, USA Intervention: Combination of interventions Comparison: No intervention | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with no intervention | Risk with Combination of interventions | |||||
| ANC coverage: four or more visits | Moderate | Average OR 1.48 (0.99 to 2.21) | 7840 (6 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 3 | This is the primary analysis, ICC 0.02. | |
| 430 per 1000 | 528 per 1000 (428 to 625) | |||||
| Pregnancy‐related deaths | Moderate | Average OR 0.70 (0.39 to 1.26) | 13756 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 3 | ||
| 600 per 100000 | 421 per 100000 (235 to 755) | |||||
| ANC coverage: one or more visits | Moderate | Average OR 1.79 (1.47 to 2.17) | 12426 (5 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 3 | ||
| 580 per 1000 | 712 per 1000 (670 to 750) | |||||
| Deliveries in a health facility | Moderate | Average 1.53 (0.96 to 2.43) | 12314 (5 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 3 | ||
| 165 per 1000 | 252 per 1000 (158 to 401) | |||||
| Perinatal mortality | Moderate | Average 0.74 (0.57 to 0.95) | 39130 (5 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 4 | ||
| 90 per 1000 | 67 per 1000 (51 to 58) | |||||
| Low birthweight | Moderate | Average 0.61 (0.46 to 0.80) | 2084 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 1 | ||
| 165 per 1000 | 101 per 1000 (76 to 132) | |||||
| Intermittent Prophylactic Treatment for malaria | Study population | not pooled | 00 (0 study) | No trial eligible for this comparison reported this outcome | ||
| not pooled | not pooled | |||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio. Denominators for the calculation of the absolute comparative effects have been taken from individual trial reports or from Prost 2013. Where different denominators are stated in different reports, we have taken the larger. The median control group risk has been calculated from event and participant raw data, where this was available. If we found no raw event and participant data in published reports, these trials were not included in the calculation of the median control group risk. Both the participant totals and the median control group risk are for illustrative purposes only. In the majority of the trials in this review, the final odds ratio presented will not correspond with raw event and participant data due to adjustments made for the effects of cluster design. We have designated the control risk as moderate because it is based on the median of a wide range of baseline rates in control groups. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1 Most weight from trials with design limitations (‐1).
2 Statistical heterogeneity, I2 = 48% ; we did not downgrade for heterogeneity unless the I2 > 60%.
3 Wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect (‐1).
4 Statistical heterogeneity, I2 = 83% (‐1).