Basically, yes. It's hard to tell exactly where those high neonatal numbers are pulled from. That's the frustrating thing. They give a list of 12 studies they analyzed -- three from Canada (1998 - 1999; 2003 - 2006; and 2000 - 2004); two from the Netherlands (1990 - 1993 and 2000 - 2006); two from the U.S. (1976 - 1982 and 1989 - 1996, and note that the big North American homebirth study is not in there); two from the UK (1978 - 1983 and 1994); one from Western Australia (1981 - 1987), one from Switzerland (1989 - 1992) and one from Sweden (1992 - 2004).
Hence, we have this new "me-too" meta-analysis, which I consider to be little more than an attempt for ACOG and its minions to legitimize their relentless quest to force childbearing women into hospitals. In fact, they're gearing up to lobby against our birthing rights, (detailed in last link), so don't think the timing of this publication was an accident.
This "meta-analysis" is, in fact, only a "quasi-analysis" in that it cherry picks which studies to consider. The most pivotal study of them all was not welcome at the table.