-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Some clinicians believe that routine episiotomy, a surgical cut of the vagina and perineum, will prevent serious tears during childbirth. On the other hand, an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Some clinicians believe that routine episiotomy, a surgical cut of the vagina and perineum, will prevent serious tears during childbirth. On the other hand, an episiotomy guarantees perineal trauma and sutures.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects on mother and baby of a policy of selective episiotomy ('only if needed') compared with a policy of routine episiotomy ('part of routine management') for vaginal births.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (14 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selective versus routine use of episiotomy, irrespective of parity, setting or surgical type of episiotomy. We included trials where either unassisted or assisted vaginal births were intended. Quasi-RCTs, trials using a cross-over design or those published in abstract form only were not eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third author mediated where there was no clear consensus. We observed good practice for data analysis and interpretation where trialists were review authors. We used fixed-effect models unless heterogeneity precluded this, expressed results as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
This updated review includes 12 studies (6177 women), 11 in women in labour for whom a vaginal birth was intended, and one in women where an assisted birth was anticipated. Two were trials each with more than 1000 women (Argentina and the UK), and the rest were smaller (from Canada, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Malaysia, Pakistan, Columbia and Saudi Arabia). Eight trials included primiparous women only, and four trials were in both primiparous and multiparous women. For risk of bias, allocation was adequately concealed and reported in nine trials; sequence generation random and adequately reported in three trials; blinding of outcomes adequate and reported in one trial, blinding of participants and personnel reported in one trial.For women where an unassisted vaginal birth was anticipated, a policy of selective episiotomy may result in 30% fewer women experiencing severe perineal/vaginal trauma (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; 5375 women; eight RCTs; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if there is a difference for blood loss at delivery (an average of 27 mL less with selective episiotomy, 95% CI from 75 mL less to 20 mL more; two trials, 336 women, very low-certainty evidence). Both selective and routine episiotomy have little or no effect on infants with Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (four trials, no events; 3908 women, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference in perineal infection (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.82, three trials, 1467 participants, low-certainty evidence).For pain, we do not know if selective episiotomy compared with routine results in fewer women with moderate or severe perineal pain (measured on a visual analogue scale) at three days postpartum (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.05, one trial, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) dyspareunia (RR1.14, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.53, three trials, 1107 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) urinary incontinence (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.44, three trials, 1107 participants, low-certainty evidence). One trial reported genital prolapse at three years postpartum. There was no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.41; 365 women; one trial, low certainty evidence). Other outcomes relating to long-term effects were not reported (urinary fistula, rectal fistula, and faecal incontinence). Subgroup analyses by parity (primiparae versus multiparae) and by surgical method (midline versus mediolateral episiotomy) did not identify any modifying effects. Pain was not well assessed, and women's preferences were not reported.One trial examined selective episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy in women where an operative vaginal delivery was intended in 175 women, and did not show clear difference on severe perineal trauma between the restrictive and routine use of episiotomy, but the analysis was underpowered.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In women where no instrumental delivery is intended, selective episiotomy policies result in fewer women with severe perineal/vaginal trauma. Other findings, both in the short or long term, provide no clear evidence that selective episiotomy policies results in harm to mother or baby.The review thus demonstrates that believing that routine episiotomy reduces perineal/vaginal trauma is not justified by current evidence. Further research in women where instrumental delivery is intended may help clarify if routine episiotomy is useful in this particular group. These trials should use better, standardised outcome assessment methods.
Topics: Apgar Score; Blood Loss, Surgical; Dyspareunia; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Pain Measurement; Parity; Parturition; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 28176333
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub3 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Jun 2022Pregnancy and childbirth increase the risk for pelvic floor dysfunction, including sexual dysfunction. So far, the mechanisms and the extent to which certain risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pregnancy and childbirth increase the risk for pelvic floor dysfunction, including sexual dysfunction. So far, the mechanisms and the extent to which certain risk factors play a role remain unclear.
OBJECTIVES
In this systematic review of the literature we aimed to determine risk factors for sexual dysfunction in the first year after childbirth.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL using the search strategy: sexual dysfunction AND obstetric events.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included original, comparative studies, reported in English, that used validated questionnaires and the ICS/IUGA terminology for sexual dysfunction, dyspareunia and vaginal dryness.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed the quality and the risk of bias of the included studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We extracted the reported data and we performed random-effects meta-analysis to obtain the summary odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using the I statistic.
MAIN RESULTS
Anal sphincter injury was associated with increased odds for both sexual dysfunction (OR 3.00, 95%CI 1.28-7.03) and dyspareunia (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.47-2.52). Episiotomy was associated with dyspareunia (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.25-2.14), but not with sexual dysfunction (OR 1.90, 95% CI 0.94-3.84). Compared with spontaneous birth, caesarean section reduced the odds for dyspareunia (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86) but not for sexual dysfunction (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89-1.46). Instrumental vaginal birth increased the odds for sexual dysfunction (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.05-2.76), yet no difference was found for dyspareunia (OR 1.82, 95% CI 0.88-3.75). One study of low quality reported on vaginal dryness and found no association with obstetric events.
CONCLUSIONS
Perineal trauma, rather than mode of birth, increases the odds for sexual dysfunction in the first year after childbirth.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Perineal trauma, rather than mode of birth, correlates with sexual dysfunction and dyspareunia postpartum. #dyspareunia #OASI #episiotomy.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Dyspareunia; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Perineum; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy
PubMed: 34536325
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.16934 -
Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem Da U S P 2020To investigate whether the adoption of upright positions by women during childbirth prevents perineal lacerations compared to the lithotomy position. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether the adoption of upright positions by women during childbirth prevents perineal lacerations compared to the lithotomy position.
METHOD
A systematic review with meta-analysis. The searches were carried out in the databases: LILACS, Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Science Direct and Scopus. Searches in the gray literature were conducted on Google Scholar and OpenGrey databases. Reference lists of included articles were also considered. The Cochrane collaboration tool and ACROBAT-NRSI were used to analyze the methodological quality of the articles.
RESULTS
There were 26 studies listed and 8 were selected for the meta-analysis. The level of scientific evidence was classified by the GRADE System and considered high. There was no statistically significant difference between upright positions in relation to horizontal positions. Despite this finding, the upright positions showed reduced rates of severe perineal lacerations.
CONCLUSION
Adopting upright positions in normal delivery can be encouraged by professionals as it can prevent severe perineal lacerations; however, it is not possible to accurately affirm their effectiveness to the detriment of horizontal positions for an intact perineum outcome.
Topics: Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Lacerations; Parturition; Patient Positioning; Perineum; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32935765
DOI: 10.1590/S1980-220X2018027503610 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is the most commonly used physical therapy treatment for women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). It is sometimes also... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is the most commonly used physical therapy treatment for women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). It is sometimes also recommended for mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) and, less commonly, urgency urinary incontinence (UUI).This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of PFMT for women with urinary incontinence (UI) in comparison to no treatment, placebo or sham treatments, or other inactive control treatments; and summarise the findings of relevant economic evaluations.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (searched 12 February 2018), which contains trials identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings, and the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with SUI, UUI or MUI (based on symptoms, signs or urodynamics). One arm of the trial included PFMT. Another arm was a no treatment, placebo, sham or other inactive control treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias. We extracted and cross-checked data. A third review author resolved disagreements. We processed data as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We subgrouped trials by diagnosis of UI. We undertook formal meta-analysis when appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
The review included 31 trials (10 of which were new for this update) involving 1817 women from 14 countries. Overall, trials were of small-to-moderate size, with follow-ups generally less than 12 months and many were at moderate risk of bias. There was considerable variation in the intervention's content and duration, study populations and outcome measures. There was only one study of women with MUI and only one study with UUI alone, with no data on cure, cure or improvement, or number of episodes of UI for these subgroups.Symptomatic cure of UI at the end of treatment: compared with no treatment or inactive control treatments, women with SUI who were in the PFMT groups were eight times more likely to report cure (56% versus 6%; risk ratio (RR) 8.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.68 to 19.07; 4 trials, 165 women; high-quality evidence). For women with any type of UI, PFMT groups were five times more likely to report cure (35% versus 6%; RR 5.34, 95% CI 2.78 to 10.26; 3 trials, 290 women; moderate-quality evidence).Symptomatic cure or improvement of UI at the end of treatment: compared with no treatment or inactive control treatments, women with SUI who were in the PFMT groups were six times more likely to report cure or improvement (74% versus 11%; RR 6.33, 95% CI 3.88 to 10.33; 3 trials, 242 women; moderate-quality evidence). For women with any type of UI, PFMT groups were two times more likely to report cure or improvement than women in the control groups (67% versus 29%; RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.64 to 3.47; 2 trials, 166 women; moderate-quality evidence).UI-specific symptoms and quality of life (QoL) at the end of treatment: compared with no treatment or inactive control treatments, women with SUI who were in the PFMT group were more likely to report significant improvement in UI symptoms (7 trials, 376 women; moderate-quality evidence), and to report significant improvement in UI QoL (6 trials, 348 women; low-quality evidence). For any type of UI, women in the PFMT group were more likely to report significant improvement in UI symptoms (1 trial, 121 women; moderate-quality evidence) and to report significant improvement in UI QoL (4 trials, 258 women; moderate-quality evidence). Finally, for women with mixed UI treated with PFMT, there was one small trial (12 women) reporting better QoL.Leakage episodes in 24 hours at the end of treatment: PFMT reduced leakage episodes by one in women with SUI (mean difference (MD) 1.23 lower, 95% CI 1.78 lower to 0.68 lower; 7 trials, 432 women; moderate-quality evidence) and in women with all types of UI (MD 1.00 lower, 95% CI 1.37 lower to 0.64 lower; 4 trials, 349 women; moderate-quality evidence).Leakage on short clinic-based pad tests at the end of treatment: women with SUI in the PFMT groups lost significantly less urine in short (up to one hour) pad tests. The comparison showed considerable heterogeneity but the findings still favoured PFMT when using a random-effects model (MD 9.71 g lower, 95% CI 18.92 lower to 0.50 lower; 4 trials, 185 women; moderate-quality evidence). For women with all types of UI, PFMT groups also reported less urine loss on short pad tests than controls (MD 3.72 g lower, 95% CI 5.46 lower to 1.98 lower; 2 trials, 146 women; moderate-quality evidence).Women in the PFMT group were also more satisfied with treatment and their sexual outcomes were better. Adverse events were rare and, in the two trials that did report any, they were minor. The findings of the review were largely supported by the 'Summary of findings' tables, but most of the evidence was downgraded to moderate on methodological grounds. The exception was 'participant-perceived cure' in women with SUI, which was rated as high quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the data available, we can be confident that PFMT can cure or improve symptoms of SUI and all other types of UI. It may reduce the number of leakage episodes, the quantity of leakage on the short pad tests in the clinic and symptoms on UI-specific symptom questionnaires. The authors of the one economic evaluation identified for the Brief Economic Commentary reported that the cost-effectiveness of PFMT looks promising. The findings of the review suggest that PFMT could be included in first-line conservative management programmes for women with UI. The long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PFMT needs to be further researched.
Topics: Biofeedback, Psychology; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Muscle Contraction; Pelvic Floor; Perineum; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Incontinence; Urinary Incontinence, Stress
PubMed: 30288727
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005654.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a wide range of adverse health consequences for women and their infants in the short and long term. With an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a wide range of adverse health consequences for women and their infants in the short and long term. With an increasing prevalence of GDM worldwide, there is an urgent need to assess strategies for GDM prevention, such as combined diet and exercise interventions. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of diet interventions in combination with exercise interventions for pregnant women for preventing GDM, and associated adverse health consequences for the mother and her infant/child.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, comparing combined diet and exercise interventions with no intervention (i.e. standard care), that reported on GDM diagnosis as an outcome. Quasi-RCTs were excluded. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. We planned to include RCTs comparing two or more different diet/exercise interventions, however none were identified.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of the included trials and assessed quality of evidence for selected maternal and infant/child outcomes using the GRADE approach. We checked data for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update, we included 23 RCTs (involving 8918 women and 8709 infants) that compared combined diet and exercise interventions with no intervention (standard care). The studies varied in the diet and exercise programs evaluated and health outcomes reported. None reported receiving funding from a drug manufacturer or agency with interests in the results. Overall risk of bias was judged to be unclear due to the lack of methodological detail reported. Most studies were undertaken in high-income countries.For our primary review outcomes, there was a possible reduced risk of GDM in the diet and exercise intervention group compared with the standard care group (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.01; 6633 women; 19 RCTs; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 42%; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence). There was also a possible reduced risk of caesarean section (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02; 6089 women; 14 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence). No clear differences were seen between groups for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.22; 5366 participants; 8 RCTs; low-quality evidence), pregnancy-induced hypertension and/or hypertension (average RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.27; 3073 participants; 6 RCTs; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 62%; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.63; 3757 participants; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 5353 participants; 11 RCTs; low-quality evidence). No data were reported for infant mortality or morbidity composite.Subgroup analyses (based on trial design, maternal body mass index (BMI) and ethnicity) revealed no clear differential treatment effects. We were unable to assess the impact of maternal age, parity and specific features of the diet and exercise interventions. Findings from sensitivity analyses (based on RCT quality) generally supported those observed in the main analyses. We were not able to perform subgroup analyses based on maternal age, parity or nature of the exercise/dietary interventions due to the paucity of information/data on these characteristics and the inability to meaningfully group intervention characteristics.For most of the secondary review outcomes assessed using GRADE, there were no clear differences between groups, including for perineal trauma (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.05; 2733 participants; 2 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.98; 3653 participants; 2 RCTs; Tau² = 0.23; I² = 77%; low quality evidence); and childhood adiposity (BMI z score) (MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.40; 794 participants; 2 RCTs; Tau² = 0.04; I² = 59%; low-quality evidence). However, there was evidence of less gestational weight gain in the diet and exercise intervention group compared with the control group (mean difference (MD) -0.89 kg, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.40; 5052 women; 16 RCTs; Tau² = 0.37; I² = 43%;moderate-quality evidence). No data were reported for maternal postnatal depression or type 2 diabetes; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes, or neurosensory disability.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-quality evidence suggests reduced risks of GDM and caesarean section with combined diet and exercise interventions during pregnancy as well as reductions in gestational weight gain, compared with standard care. There were no clear differences in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, perinatal mortality, large-for-gestational age, perineal trauma, neonatal hypoglycaemia, and childhood adiposity (moderate- tovery low-quality evidence).Using GRADE methodology, the evidence was assessed as moderate to very low quality. Downgrading decisions were predominantly due to design limitations (risk of bias), and imprecision (uncertain effect estimates, and at times, small sample sizes and low event rates), however two outcomes (pregnancy-induced hypertension/hypertension and neonatal hypoglycaemia), were also downgraded for unexplained inconsistency (statistical heterogeneity).Due to the variability of the diet and exercise components tested in the included studies, the evidence in this review has limited ability to inform practice. Future studies could describe the interventions used in more detail, if and how these influenced behaviour change and ideally be standardised between studies. Studies could also consider using existing core outcome sets to facilitate more standardised reporting.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Combined Modality Therapy; Diabetes, Gestational; Diet; Exercise; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Infant, Newborn; Perinatal Mortality; Perineum; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29129039
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010443.pub3 -
Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and... Oct 2023Natural childbirth is associated with the risk of damage to the perineum - a tears or a episiotomy. Adequate preparation of the woman for childbirth is essential to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Natural childbirth is associated with the risk of damage to the perineum - a tears or a episiotomy. Adequate preparation of the woman for childbirth is essential to minimize the occurrence of perinatal injuries.
AIM
The aim of the review is to assess and analyze the impact of APM (antental perineal massage) on perinatal perineal injuries and the development of pelvic pain and other complications in postpartum women, such as dyspareunia, urinary (UI), gas (GI), and fecal incontinence (FI).
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Embase were searched. Three authors independently searched databases and selected articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Next one author did Risk of Bias 2 and ROBINS 1 analyze.
FINDINGS
Of 711 articles, 18 publications were left for the review. All 18 studies examined the risk of perineal injuries (tearing and episiotomy), 7 pain in postpartum period, 6 postpartum urinary, gas/fecal incontinence and 2 described dyspareunia. Most authors described APM from 34 weeks of pregnancy until delivery. There were different techniques and times for doing APM procedures.
DISCUSSION
APM has many benefits for women during labor and the postpartum period (e.g. lower rate of perineal injuries and pain). However, it can be observed that individual publications differ from each other in the time of massage, the period and frequency of its performance, the form of obtaining instruction and control of patients. These components may affect the results obtained.
CONCLUSION
APM can protects the perineum from injuries during labor. It also reduces risk of fecal and gas incontinence in postpartum period.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Perineum; Fecal Incontinence; Dyspareunia; Parturition; Massage; Pelvic Pain; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 37414371
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2023.102627 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Mar 2020Different techniques have been analyzed to reduce the risk of perineal trauma during labor. To evaluate whether perineal massage techniques during vaginal delivery... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Different techniques have been analyzed to reduce the risk of perineal trauma during labor. To evaluate whether perineal massage techniques during vaginal delivery decreases the risk of perineal trauma. Electronic databases (Medline, Prospero, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, SciELO) were searched from their inception until February 2018. No restrictions for language or geographic location were applied. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of perineal massage during labor (i.e. intervention group) with a control group (i.e. no perineal massage) in women with singleton gestation and cephalic presentation at ≥36 weeks. Perineal massage was defined as massage of the posterior perineum by the clinician's fingers (with or without lubricant). Trials on perineal massage during antenatal care, before the onset of labor, or only in the early part of the first stage, were not included. All analyses were done using an intention-to-treat approach. The primary outcome was severe perineal trauma, defined as third and fourth degree perineal lacerations. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model of DerSimonian and Laird to produce summary treatment effects in terms of either a relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Nine trials including 3374 women were analyzed. All studies included women with singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation at ≥36 weeks undergoing spontaneous vaginal delivery. Perineal massage was usually done by a midwife in the second stage, during or between and during pushing time, with the index and middle fingers, using a water-soluble lubricant. Women randomized to receive perineal massage during labor had a significantly lower incidence of severe perineal trauma, compared to those who did not (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.94). All the secondary outcomes were not significant, except for the incidence of intact perineum, which was significantly higher in the perineal massage group (RR 1.40, 95% 1.01-1.93), and for the incidence of episiotomy, which was significantly lower in the perineal massage group (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38-0.82). Perineal massage during labor is associated with significant lower risk of severe perineal trauma, such as third and fourth degree lacerations. Perineal massage was usually done by a midwife in the second stage, during or between and during pushing time, with the index and middle fingers, using a water-soluble lubricant.
Topics: Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Lacerations; Massage; Models, Statistical; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30107756
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1512574 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Gestational diabetes (GDM) is glucose intolerance, first recognised in pregnancy and usually resolving after birth. GDM is associated with both short- and long-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gestational diabetes (GDM) is glucose intolerance, first recognised in pregnancy and usually resolving after birth. GDM is associated with both short- and long-term adverse effects for the mother and her infant. Lifestyle interventions are the primary therapeutic strategy for many women with GDM.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of combined lifestyle interventions with or without pharmacotherapy in treating women with gestational diabetes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14th May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomised controlled trials comparing a lifestyle intervention with usual care or another intervention for the treatment of pregnant women with GDM. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. Women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. All selection of studies, data extraction was conducted independently by two review authors.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen trials (in 45 reports) are included in this review (4501 women, 3768 infants). None of the trials were funded by a conditional grant from a pharmaceutical company. The lifestyle interventions included a wide variety of components such as education, diet, exercise and self-monitoring of blood glucose. The control group included usual antenatal care or diet alone. Using GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low quality. The main reasons for downgrading evidence were inconsistency and risk of bias. We summarised the following data from the important outcomes of this review. Lifestyle intervention versus control groupFor the mother:There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.22; four trials, 2796 women; I = 79%, Tau = 0.23; low-quality evidence); caesarean section (average RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05; 10 trials, 3545 women; I = 48%, Tau = 0.02; low-quality evidence); development of type 2 diabetes (up to a maximum of 10 years follow-up) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.76; two trials, 486 women; I = 16%; low-quality evidence); perineal trauma/tearing (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; one trial, n = 1000 women; moderate-quality evidence) or induction of labour (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.46; four trials, n = 2699 women; I = 37%; high-quality evidence).More women in the lifestyle intervention group had met postpartum weight goals one year after birth than in the control group (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.90; 156 women; one trial, low-quality evidence). Lifestyle interventions were associated with a decrease in the risk of postnatal depression compared with the control group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.78; one trial, n = 573 women; low-quality evidence).For the infant/child/adult:Lifestyle interventions were associated with a reduction in the risk of being born large-for-gestational age (LGA) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.71; six trials, 2994 infants; I = 4%; moderate-quality evidence). Birthweight and the incidence of macrosomia were lower in the lifestyle intervention group.Exposure to the lifestyle intervention was associated with decreased neonatal fat mass compared with the control group (mean difference (MD) -37.30 g, 95% CI -63.97 to -10.63; one trial, 958 infants; low-quality evidence). In childhood, there was no clear evidence of a difference between groups for body mass index (BMI) ≥ 85th percentile (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11; three trials, 767 children; I = 4%; moderate-quality evidence).There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for the risk of perinatal death (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.70; two trials, 1988 infants; low-quality evidence). Of 1988 infants, only five events were reported in total in the control group and there were no events in the lifestyle group. There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for a composite of serious infant outcome/s (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.55; two trials, 1930 infants; I = 82%, Tau = 0.44; very low-quality evidence) or neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.52; six trials, 3000 infants; I = 48%, Tau = 0.12; moderate-quality evidence). Diabetes and adiposity in adulthood and neurosensory disability in later childhoodwere not prespecified or reported as outcomes for any of the trials included in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Lifestyle interventions are the primary therapeutic strategy for women with GDM. Women receiving lifestyle interventions were less likely to have postnatal depression and were more likely to achieve postpartum weight goals. Exposure to lifestyle interventions was associated with a decreased risk of the baby being born LGA and decreased neonatal adiposity. Long-term maternal and childhood/adulthood outcomes were poorly reported.The value of lifestyle interventions in low-and middle-income countries or for different ethnicities remains unclear. The longer-term benefits or harms of lifestyle interventions remains unclear due to limited reporting.The contribution of individual components of lifestyle interventions could not be assessed. Ten per cent of participants also received some form of pharmacological therapy. Lifestyle interventions are useful as the primary therapeutic strategy and most commonly include healthy eating, physical activity and self-monitoring of blood glucose concentrations.Future research could focus on which specific interventions are most useful (as the sole intervention without pharmacological treatment), which health professionals should give them and the optimal format for providing the information. Evaluation of long-term outcomes for the mother and her child should be a priority when planning future trials. There has been no in-depth exploration of the costs 'saved' from reduction in risk of LGA/macrosomia and potential longer-term risks for the infants.
Topics: Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring; Body Mass Index; Body Weight; Cesarean Section; Depression, Postpartum; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetes, Gestational; Diet, Diabetic; Exercise; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Postmature; Labor, Induced; Life Style; Patient Education as Topic; Perineum; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28472859
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011970.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2015More than 85% of women having a vaginal birth suffer some perineal trauma. Spontaneous tears requiring suturing are estimated to occur in at least one third of women in... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
More than 85% of women having a vaginal birth suffer some perineal trauma. Spontaneous tears requiring suturing are estimated to occur in at least one third of women in the UK and US. Perineal trauma can lead to long-term physical and psychological problems.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of different methods and materials for primary repair of first- and second-degree tears and episiotomies? What are the effects of different methods and materials for primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (third- and fourth-degree tears)? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to November 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 33 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: conventional suturing; different methods and materials for primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries; non-suturing of muscle and skin (or perineal skin alone); and sutures (absorbable synthetic sutures, catgut sutures, continuous sutures, interrupted sutures).
Topics: Anal Canal; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Perineum; Pregnancy; Sutures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25752310
DOI: No ID Found -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Feb 2019Because conventional prostate biopsy has some limitations, optimal variations of prostate biopsy strategies have emerged to improve the diagnosis rate of prostate... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Because conventional prostate biopsy has some limitations, optimal variations of prostate biopsy strategies have emerged to improve the diagnosis rate of prostate cancer. We conducted the systematic review to compare the diagnosis rate and complications of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy. We searched for online publications published through June 27, 2018, in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. The relative risk and 95% confidence interval were utilized to appraise the diagnosis and complication rate. The condensed relative risk of 11 included studies indicated that transperineal prostate biopsy has the same diagnosis accuracy of transrectal prostate biopsy; however, a significantly lower risk of fever and rectal bleeding was reported for transperineal prostate biopsy. No clue of publication bias could be identified.
SHORT CONCLUSION
To conclude, this review indicated that transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy have the same diagnosis accuracy, but the transperineal approach has a lower risk of fever and rectal bleeding. More studies are warranted to confirm these findings and discover a more effective diagnosis method for prostate cancer.
Topics: Biopsy, Large-Core Needle; Fever; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Male; Perineum; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Rectum; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 30760274
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-019-1573-0