Download PDFPDF
Neonatal outcomes of waterbirth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    How a Belgian daily paper informed its readers about the contents of the review on waterbirth

    Le Soir, one of Belgium's leading French language newspapers (1), headlined the front page of its 23 May 2016 edition with "Birth in water: a dangerous new fashion." Page 6 was devoted to the review by Taylor et al; the subtitle said "New study underlines the dangers of drowning and pulmonary infection for babies; no benefit from this fashionable birthing technique". I was asked that afternoon, in my capacity of advise...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: Water births: adverse events for the baby are rare but devastating
    • Alastair Sutcliffe, Professor
    • Other Contributors:
      • Henry Taylor, Ira Kleine, Susan Bewley, Eva Loucaides

    We are grateful for the interest in our paper and the opportunity to refute the suggestion that it is falsely reassuring. Our paper provides a fair and accurate representation of the best available data; it concludes that "this systematic review and meta-analysis did not identify definitive evidence that waterbirth causes harm to neonates ... However, there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that there are no...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Water births: adverse events for the baby are rare but devastating

    The overall tone of this systematic review is to reassure the reader that waterbirths are safe; this is not justified by the results which rely almost exclusively on extremely poor quality retrospective cohort studies. Different study designs have significant differences in their susceptibility to bias and the authors have largely ignored this issue. Larger, non-randomised studies, more prone to bias, carry more weight ; n...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.