Submit a manuscript Sign up for article alerts Contact us


Latest comments

Very Scientific (Tesfaye Setegn, 19 August 2014)

What an increadable job.
read full comment

Comment on: Markos et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 14:282

Need information of practical use (K Harkavy, 09 June 2014)

That rates of adverse outcomes rise with worsening intolerance to glucose is no surprise. What a clinician (or a group trying to develop guidelines) needs is a way to balance the benefits and risk of choosing different values to define an abnormal test, such as a OGTT. The receiver operating curve evaluates the trade off between risk and benefit at each chosen value by comparing sensitivity and specificity. A lower glucose value in an OGTT is more sensitive but less specific. A higher value is more specific but less sensitive. Furthermore, the authors also built in a screening criteria for doing the OGTT in the first place. We would need to know how this impacts sensitivity and... read full comment

Comment on: Lindqvist et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 14:185

An error in a subheading in Table 2 (Vigdis Aasheim, 03 October 2013)

In Table 2 at page 6 there are 4 subheadings under 'Subgroups of women by mode of delivery'. The third subheading should be corrected from 'Women with instrumental vaginal delivery' to 'Women with emergency cesarean' read full comment

Comment on: Aasheim et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 13:53

Table 2, correct formula (Carolina Venditti, 15 February 2012)

The formula we entered in Table 2 for LGD is slightly incorrect. The correct formula is as follows:

LGD: Total LGD/[Total Implantation Sites-(EGD + LGD)]*100 read full comment

Comment on: Venditti et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 11:101

Stillbirth rate is not reduced after a quality improvement intervention (Kjell Salvesen, 11 March 2011)

In this correction paper the authors have reanalysed the results from a previous paper (Tveit JV, Saastad E, Stray-Pedersen B, Børdahl PE, Flenady V, Fretts R, Frøen JF. Reduction of late stillbirth with the introduction of fetal movement information and guidelines - a clinical quality improvement. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009;Jul 22;9:32)

In Table 1 the following data (children > 28 weeks or > 1000 g) are given:
Original comparison OR 0.69, 95% CI (0.50-0.96)
Reanalysis (cross validated data) OR 0.79, 95% CI (0.57-1.09)

These data should be interpreted as a statistically significant 31% reduction in stillbirth rate in the original comparison and a non-significant 21% reduction of stillbirths in the reanalysis.

Since this... read full comment

Comment on: Tveit et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 10:49

Urban Legends (Neal Devitt, 23 July 2010)

Beta blockers are not contraindicated in asthma. Selective beta blockers can be used with care in most asthmatics. See:Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(2):CD002992. Cardioselective beta-blocker use in patients with reversible airway disease. Likewise beta blockers can be used in diabetics and now are indicated in compensated heart failure. read full comment

Comment on: Ray et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 1:6

Reduction of late stillbirth - reply from the authors (J. Frederik Frøen, 29 October 2009)

Dear Sir,

Salvesen’s comment to our study has just come to our attention, and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify. The comments have questions regarding three aspects of our study:
1. How come the effect is not reflected in publicly available data?
2. How come mortality seems lower already in the first month of intervention?
3. How come the intervention seems to lower mortality without increasing maternal concern and/or interventions?

1) To the first question, on why the effects cannot be seen on the web site of the Medical Birth Registry of Norway (MBRN), we regret that Salvesen has had the misfortune of using incorrect 1) Inclusion criteria, 2) Catchment criteria, 3) Catchment area, 4) Time period, 5) Intervention period... read full comment

Comment on: Tveit et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 9:32

Reduction of late stillbirths - questions to the authors (Kjell Salvesen, 15 October 2009)

I have read this paper with interest. An intervention reducing the stillbirth rate by 50% in a group of women presenting with decreased fetal movements (DFM), and 30% in the study population as a whole, is good news. However, I would like to ask the authors some questions regarding their results.

In brief, the study was a comparison of obstetric outcomes in two time periods: baseline (April – October 2005) and during an intervention period (November 2005 – March 2007). All women delivered at 14 maternity wards in Norway. The intervention consisted of:
1. An informational brochure on fetal movements (including a kick chart) was distributed to pregnant women attending the routine ultrasound scan at 18 weeks of pregnancy.
2. New guidelines for health care... read full comment

Comment on: Tveit et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 9:32

Education/information may be necessary to decreased fetal movement especially “at term”. (Shigeki Matsubara, 24 August 2009)

Dear Sir,
Although maternally perceived decreased fetal movement (DFM) sometimes precedes imminent fetal jeopardy, controversy remains as to whether universal screening, ie,, informing all pregnant women of fetal movement (FM), and identifying women with DFM followed by intervention, reduces the stillbirth rate.

We applaud Dr Tveit and her colleagues for having shown that universal screening for DFM did reduce the stillbirth rate in eastern Norway [1]. A well designed brochure [2] accompanying this article is applicable to any other institutes or countries.

Recently, we have introduced “modified count to 10” for FM, and established its reference value for low-risk Japanese [3]. As is commonly known, perceived FM decreases toward term, with the 32th... read full comment

Comment on: Tveit et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 9:32

Amendment to the protocol (Shrikant Bollapragada, 08 December 2006)

Dear SirWe write to inform you of a change in the study protocol since our original submission. This relates to an increase in sample size from 300 to 350 women. We gained approval from MHRA and the ethics committee before increasing the sample size and we had submitted this request as a substantial amendment.The original protocol stated that 300 women will be recruited to the study. The primary outcome on which this study is powered is the time interval from hospital admission to delivery. With 150 women in each of the IMN and placebo groups (300 in total) the study has 96% power at a 5% level of significance to detect a difference in mean time from admission to delivery of 4 hours, assuming a common standard deviation of 9 hours, using a two sample two sided t-test. In a meeting of the... read full comment

Comment on: Bollapragada et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 6:25

Odds Ratio (OR) Measure (MOHAMMED AL-HINDI, 03 March 2006)

Thank you for this interesting article. I just want to make sure about the OR calculation.In the abstract and the full text it is mentioned that "Seven of the affected infants were delivered at 37-38 weeks (5.2/1000 births OR = 26, 95%CI -4.6 to 5.8). Five patients delivered at 38 -39 weeks, (2/1000 births) OR = 10 95%CI -4.9 to 5.4)". And then you confirmed that by saying "we found that infants born at 37 and 38 weeks' gestation experience a 26-fold and 10-fold increased risk of severe RDS, respectively". My understanding is that the measure of association, (OR) in this article, should be within the 95% Confidence Interval (CI). The CI of an OR should not be less than zero.I did some calculations using statistical program (STATA) OR were 25.2(95%CI 3.2-1136) and 9.7 (95%CI 1.08-459... read full comment

Comment on: Bakr et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 6:4

These findings may represent reduced DHEA... (James Howard, 24 May 2004)

It is my hypothesis that DHEA was selected by evolution because DHEA optimizes replication and transcription of DNA. Therefore, all tissues, and all growth and development, rely on levels of DHEA.Black women produce more testosterone than white women. Since it is known that testosterone reduces steroid sulfatase, the conversion of DHEA sulfate, the large, background source of DHEA, to DHEA is reduced. Smoking also increases DHEA sulfate (Eur J Epidemiol. 1997 Jul;13(5):553-8.). Both of these may reduce the availability of DHEA for proper growth and development of fetuses and subsequently affect the viability of neonates.I suggest the findings of Joseph, et al., may result from the effects of testosterone and/or smoking on increasing levels of DHEA sulfate. read full comment

Comment on: Joseph et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 4:7