Study	Reason for exclusion
Berglund 1998	This study was a retrospective study comparing outcomes for 2 groups of women who gave birth in 1990 and 1992.
Berglund 2007	This study compared risk assessment by physicians with midwives reporting new mothers to the doctor. It does not compare midwife‐led with other models of care.
Bernitz 2011	This study compared women giving birth in 3 different birth units: the special unit for high‐risk women; the normal unit; and the midwife‐led unit. It does not compare midwife‐led with other models of care throughout pregnancy and birth.
Chambliss 1991	Women admitted in labour were assigned to either midwife‐led or a resident physician and antenatal care was not part of the intervention.
Chapman 1986	This study compares similar models of care occurring in 2 different birth environments rather than comparing 2 different models of care. The same group of community midwives cared for the women in both groups. Method of randomisation is not stated.
Famuyide 2014	This study did not provide continuity of care from antenatal through to intrapartum period.
Giles 1992	The study compares 2 models of antenatal care, i.e. antenatal care by midwives and obstetricians or antenatal care by midwives only. Intrapartum and postpartum care are not part of the intervention.
Gu 2013	This study did not provide continuity of care from antenatal through to intrapartum period.
Heins 1990	The study presents a randomised trial of nurse‐midwifery prenatal care to reduce low birthweight: intrapartum and postpartum care are not part of the intervention.
Hildingsson 2003	The aim of the study was to determine women's interest in home birth and in‐hospital birth centre care in Sweden and to describe the characteristics of these women. It did not compare the models of care in these 2 settings.
Hundley 1994	The main objective was to compare care and delivery of low‐risk women in a midwife‐managed delivery unit with care and delivery in the consultant‐led labour ward. It is not indicated if women in the birth centre group had antenatal midwifery‐led care.
James 1988	This study compared a schematic approach to antenatal care only and conventional shared care. There are no data available.
Kelly 1986	Study protocol only, search strategy did not reveal any evidence that the trial was conducted and completed.
Klein 1984	The intervention involved the comparison of 2 birthing environments.
Law 1999	In this study, the randomisation took place on the admission to labour ward, thus the study compared intrapartum care only.
Marks 2003	This study aimed to compare continuity of midwifery care with standard midwifery care in reducing postnatal depression in women with a past history of depression. Thus midwife‐led care is not being compared to another model of care.
Runnerstrom 1969	The primary reason for exclusion is the fact that the study did not compare a midwifery model of care to another model. The purpose of the investigation was to study the effectiveness or non‐effectiveness of nurse‐midwives in a supervised hospital environment. The population of the study comprised student nurse‐midwives and compared their services to those of MD residents in the same unit. Moreover, there are not enough comparable data.
Slome 1976	Large loss to follow‐up after randomisation. A total of 66.5% in the treatment group and 63.5% in the control group were excluded or lost to the study.
Stevens 1988	The care was not midwifery‐led. Both groups received shared care. 1 group received most of their care at a satellite clinic in their neighbourhood, which was an inner‐city, socio‐economically deprived area. The other group received care at the hospital clinic. Women receiving satellite clinic care also had additional social support from link workers during pregnancy. It was a comparison of the same model of care at different settings.
Tucker 1996	The study compares a shared care model vs a medical‐led model. The primary analyses are not included.
Waldenstrom 1997	This study compared birth centre care ‐ characterised by comprehensive antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care, on the same premises with a home‐like environment and the same team of midwives ‐ to the standard obstetric care divided into antenatal care at neighbourhood antenatal clinics, intrapartum care in hospital delivery wards, and postpartum care in hospital postpartum wards. In the standard obstetric care, a woman usually meets with the same midwife, at the antenatal clinic, throughout pregnancy. In the delivery ward she meets a new staff team, and in the hospital postpartum ward, yet another staff team. Thus, the study compares continuous midwifery‐led caseload model of care to team midwifery‐led care.
Walker 2012	This study compared care provided by general physicians, obstetric nurses and professional midwives in a cluster‐RCT in Mexico. It does not compare midwife‐led with other models of care throughout pregnancy and birth. Abstract only available.

RCT: randomised controlled trial
 vs: versus