-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three copies of chromosome 21, or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome, rather than two. It... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three copies of chromosome 21, or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome, rather than two. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability and also leads to numerous metabolic and structural problems. It can be life-threatening, or lead to considerable ill health, although some individuals have only mild problems and can lead relatively normal lives. Having a baby with Down's syndrome is likely to have a significant impact on family life. The risk of a Down's syndrome affected pregnancy increases with advancing maternal age.Noninvasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing. Before agreeing to screening tests, parents need to be fully informed about the risks, benefits and possible consequences of such a test. This includes subsequent choices for further tests they may face, and the implications of both false positive and false negative screening tests (i.e. invasive diagnostic testing, and the possibility that a miscarried fetus may be chromosomally normal). The decisions that may be faced by expectant parents inevitably engender a high level of anxiety at all stages of the screening process, and the outcomes of screening can be associated with considerable physical and psychological morbidity. No screening test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate and compare the accuracy of first and second trimester urine markers for the detection of Down's syndrome.
SEARCH METHODS
We carried out a sensitive and comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), EMBASE (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 7), MEDION (25 August 2011), The Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine (25 August 2011), The National Research Register (archived 2007), Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (25 August 2011). We studied reference lists and published review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies evaluating tests of maternal urine in women up to 24 weeks of gestation for Down's syndrome, compared with a reference standard, either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data as test positive or test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC (receiver operating characteristic) meta-analytical methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy. We performed analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests. We investigated the impact of maternal age on test performance in subgroup analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 studies involving 18,013 pregnancies (including 527 with Down's syndrome). Studies were generally of high quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high-risk pregnancies. Twenty-four test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of the following seven different markers with and without maternal age: AFP (alpha-fetoprotein), ITA (invasive trophoblast antigen), ß-core fragment, free ßhCG (beta human chorionic gonadotrophin), total hCG, oestriol, gonadotropin peptide and various marker ratios. The strategies evaluated included three double tests and seven single tests in combination with maternal age, and one triple test, two double tests and 11 single tests without maternal age. Twelve of the 19 studies only evaluated the performance of a single test strategy while the remaining seven evaluated at least two test strategies. Two marker combinations were evaluated in more than four studies; second trimester ß-core fragment (six studies), and second trimester ß-core fragment with maternal age (five studies).In direct test comparisons, for a 5% false positive rate (FPR), the diagnostic accuracy of the double marker second trimester ß-core fragment and oestriol with maternal age test combination was significantly better (ratio of diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR): 2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 4.5), P = 0.02) (summary sensitivity of 73% (CI 57 to 85) at a cut-point of 5% FPR) than that of the single marker test strategy of second trimester ß-core fragment and maternal age (summary sensitivity of 56% (CI 45 to 66) at a cut-point of 5% FPR), but was not significantly better (RDOR: 1.5 (0.8 to 2.8), P = 0.21) than that of the second trimester ß-core fragment to oestriol ratio and maternal age test strategy (summary sensitivity of 71% (CI 51 to 86) at a cut-point of 5% FPR).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tests involving second trimester ß-core fragment and oestriol with maternal age are significantly more sensitive than the single marker second trimester ß-core fragment and maternal age, however, there were few studies. There is a paucity of evidence available to support the use of urine testing for Down's syndrome screening in clinical practice where alternatives are available.
Topics: Biomarkers; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Down Syndrome; Estriol; False Positive Reactions; Female; Gonadotropins; Humans; Maternal Age; Predictive Value of Tests; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Sensitivity and Specificity; alpha-Fetoproteins
PubMed: 26662198
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011984 -
Journal of Translational Medicine Mar 2021This study investigated whether maternal serum D-dimer (DD) alone or DD combined with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and free β-subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin (free...
Second trimester maternal serum D-dimer combined with alpha-fetoprotein and free β-subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin predict hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a systematic review and retrospective case-control study.
BACKGROUND
This study investigated whether maternal serum D-dimer (DD) alone or DD combined with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and free β-subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin (free β-hCG) in the second trimester could be used to predict hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this retrospective case-control study, the data of gravidas patients who delivered at hospital were divided into the following groups: control (n = 136), gestational hypertension (GH, n = 126), preeclampsia (PE, n = 53), and severe preeclampsia (SPE, n = 41). Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the diagnostic value of maternal serum DD, AFP, and free β-hCG levels for HDP.
RESULTS
DD levels of the GH, PE, and SPE groups were significantly higher than that of the control group (P < 0.001). The order of effectiveness for models predicting HDP was as follows: DD + AFP + free β-hCG > DD > DD + AFP > DD + free β-hCG > AFP + free β-hCG > AFP > free β-hCG. For predicting different types of HDP, DD alone had the best diagnostic value for SPE, followed by PE and GH. DD alone had a sensitivity of 100% with a 0% false negative rate and had the highest positive likelihood ratio (+ LR) for SPE. DD alone in combination with AFP alone, free β-hCG alone and AFP + free β-hCG could reduce false positive rate and improve + LR.
CONCLUSION
DD is possible the best individual predictive marker for predicting HDP. Levels of DD alone in the second trimester were positively correlated with the progression of elevated blood pressure in the third trimester, demonstrating the predicting the occurrence of HDP. The risk calculation model constructed with DD + free β-hCG + AFP had the greatest diagnostic value for SPE.
Topics: Biomarkers; Case-Control Studies; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Female; Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products; Humans; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Prenatal Diagnosis; Retrospective Studies; alpha-Fetoproteins
PubMed: 33653375
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-021-02718-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of luteal phase support (LPS) in infertile women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or by sexual intercourse.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 25 August 2021).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LPS using progestogen, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist supplementation in IUI or natural cycle.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate/ongoing pregnancy rate (LBR/OPR) and miscarriage. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (5111 participants). Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low to low. The main limitations of the evidence were poor reporting and imprecision. 1. Progesterone supplement versus placebo or no treatment We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone increases LBR/OPR (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.48; 7 RCTs; 1792 participants; low-certainty evidence) or decreases miscarriage per pregnancy compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; 5 RCTs; 261 participants). There were no data on LBR or miscarriage with oral stimulation. We are uncertain if progesterone increases LBR/OPR in women with gonadotropin stimulation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.92; 4 RCTs; 1054 participants; low-certainty evidence) and oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64; 2 RCTs; 485 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported on OPR in women with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; the evidence from this study was uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.42; 1 RCT; 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Given the low certainty of the evidence, it is unclear if progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy in any stimulation protocol (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.91; 2 RCTs; 102 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 123 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.14; 2 RCTs; 119 participants, with oral stimulation). Low-certainty evidence suggests that progesterone in all types of ovarian stimulation may increase clinical pregnancy compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.74; 7 RCTs; 1437 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90; 4 RCTs; 733 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole); and RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.98; 6 RCTs; 1073 participants, with oral stimulation). 2. Progesterone supplementation regimen We are uncertain if there is any difference between 300 mg and 600 mg of vaginal progesterone for OPR and multiple pregnancy (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 RCT; 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence, respectively). No other outcomes were reported for this comparison. There were three different comparisons between progesterone regimens. For OPR, the evidence is very uncertain for intramuscular (IM) versus vaginal progesterone (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.02; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence); we are uncertain if there is any difference between oral and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.22; 1 RCT; 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or between subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.05; 1 RCT; 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if IM or oral progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy compared to vaginal progesterone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; 1 RCT; 81 participants and RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 41 participants, respectively). Clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported for all comparisons; the evidence for these outcomes was very uncertain. Only one RCT reported adverse effects. We are uncertain if IM route increases the risk of adverse effects when compared with the vaginal route (RR 9.25, 95% CI 2.21 to 38.78; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 3. GnRH agonist versus placebo or no treatment No trials reported live birth. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GnRH agonist in ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.74; 1 RCT; 291 participants, very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.10; 2 RCTs; 79 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 2 RCTs; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; 2 RCTs; 126 participants). 4. GnRH agonist versus vaginal progesterone The evidence for the effect of GnRH agonist injection on clinical pregnancy is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.95; 1 RCT; 242 participants). 5. HCG injection versus no treatment The evidence for the effect of hCG injection on clinical pregnancy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.13; 1 RCT; 130 participants) and multiple pregnancy rates (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.92; 1 RCT; 130 participants) is very uncertain. 6. Luteal support in natural cycle No study evaluated the effect of LPS in natural cycle. We could not perform sensitivity analyses, as there were no studies at low risk of selection bias and not at high risk in other domains.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone supplementation during luteal phase is associated with a higher live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate. Vaginal progesterone may increase clinical pregnancy rate; however, its effect on miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate is uncertain. We are uncertain if IM progesterone improves ongoing pregnancy rates or decreases miscarriage rate when compared to vaginal progesterone. Regarding the other reported comparisons, neither oral progesterone nor any other medication appears to be associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes (very low-certainty evidence).
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Clomiphene; Coitus; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Insemination; Letrozole; Lipopolysaccharides; Live Birth; Luteal Phase; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone
PubMed: 36000704
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012396.pub2 -
Toxins May 2021Contamination of the world's food supply and animal feed with mycotoxins is a growing concern as global temperatures rise and promote the growth of fungus. Zearalenone...
Contamination of the world's food supply and animal feed with mycotoxins is a growing concern as global temperatures rise and promote the growth of fungus. Zearalenone (ZEN), an estrogenic mycotoxin produced by fungi, is a common contaminant of cereal grains and has also been detected at lower levels in meat, milk, and spices. ZEN's synthetic derivative, zeranol, is used as a growth promoter in United States (US) and Canadian beef production. Experimental research suggests that ZEN and zeranol disrupt the endocrine and reproductive systems, leading to infertility, polycystic ovarian syndrome-like phenotypes, pregnancy loss, and low birth weight. With widespread human dietary exposure and growing experimental evidence of endocrine-disrupting properties, a comprehensive review of the impact of ZEN, zeranol, and their metabolites on the female reproductive system is warranted. The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the in vitro, in vivo, and epidemiological literature and evaluate the potential impact of ZEN, zeranol, and their metabolites (commonly referred to as mycoestrogens) on female reproductive outcomes. We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO registration CRD42020166469) of the literature (2000-2020) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The data sources were primary literature published in English obtained from searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. The ToxR tool was applied to assess risk of bias. In vitro and in vivo studies ( = 104) were identified and, overall, evidence consistently supported adverse effects of mycoestrogens on physiological processes, organs, and tissues associated with female reproduction. In non-pregnant animals, mycoestrogens alter follicular profiles in the ovary, disrupt estrus cycling, and increase myometrium thickness. Furthermore, during pregnancy, mycoestrogen exposure contributes to placental hemorrhage, stillbirth, and impaired fetal growth. No epidemiological studies fitting the inclusion criteria were identified.
Topics: Animals; Estrogens, Non-Steroidal; Female; Fetal Development; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Humans; Luteinizing Hormone; Placenta; Pregnancy; Reproduction; Uterus; Zearalenone; Zeranol
PubMed: 34073731
DOI: 10.3390/toxins13060373 -
PloS One 2018Biomarkers commonly assessed in prenatal screening have been associated with a number of adverse perinatal and birth outcomes. However, it is not clear whether first... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Biomarkers commonly assessed in prenatal screening have been associated with a number of adverse perinatal and birth outcomes. However, it is not clear whether first trimester measurements of prenatal screening biomarkers are associated with subsequent risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). We aimed to systematically review and statistically summarize studies assessing the relationship between first trimester prenatal screening biomarker levels and GDM development. We comprehensively searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus (from inception through January 2018) and manually searched the reference lists of all relevant articles. We included original, published, observational studies examining the association of first trimester pregnancy associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and/or free β-human chorionic gonadotropin (free β-hCG) levels with GDM diagnosis. Mean differences were calculated comparing PAPP-A and free β-hCG multiples of median (MoM) levels between women who developed GDM and those who did not and were subsequently pooled using two-sided random-effects models. Our meta-analysis of 13 studies on PAPP-A and nine studies on free β-hCG indicated that first trimester MoM levels for both biomarkers were lower in women who later developed GDM compared to women who remained normoglycemic throughout pregnancy (MD -0.17; 95% CI -0.24, -0.10; MD -0.04; 95% CI -0.07-0.01). There was no evidence for between-study heterogeneity among studies on free β-hCG (I2 = 0%). A high level of between-study heterogeneity was detected among the studies reporting on PAPP-A (I2 = 90%), but was reduced after stratifying by geographic location, biomarker assay method, and timing of GDM diagnosis. Our meta-analysis indicates that women who are diagnosed with GDM have lower first trimester levels of both PAPP-A and free β-hCG than women who remain normoglycemic throughout pregnancy. Further assessment of the predictive capacity of these biomarkers within large, diverse populations is needed.
Topics: Biomarkers; Chorionic Gonadotropin, beta Subunit, Human; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Pregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein-A; Prenatal Diagnosis
PubMed: 30048548
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201319 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014In many countries intrauterine insemination (IUI) is the treatment of first choice for a subfertile couple when the infertility work up reveals an ovulatory cycle, at... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In many countries intrauterine insemination (IUI) is the treatment of first choice for a subfertile couple when the infertility work up reveals an ovulatory cycle, at least one open Fallopian tube and sufficient spermatozoa. The final goal of this treatment is to achieve a pregnancy and deliver a healthy (singleton) live birth. The probability of conceiving with IUI depends on various factors including age of the couple, type of subfertility, ovarian stimulation and the timing of insemination. IUI should logically be performed around the moment of ovulation. Since spermatozoa and oocytes have only limited survival time correct timing of the insemination is essential. As it is not known which technique of timing for IUI results in the best treatment outcome, we compared different techniques for timing IUI and different time intervals.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of different synchronisation methods in natural and stimulated cycles for IUI in subfertile couples.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials of the timing of IUI. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1966 to October 2014), EMBASE (1974 to October 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2014) and PsycINFO (inception to October 2014) electronic databases and prospective trial registers. Furthermore, we checked the reference lists of all obtained studies and performed a handsearch of conference abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different timing methods for IUI were included. The following interventions were evaluated: detection of luteinising hormone (LH) in urine or blood, single test; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration; combination of LH detection and hCG administration; basal body temperature chart; ultrasound detection of ovulation; gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist administration; or other timing methods.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the trials, extracted the data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Eighteen RCTs were included in the review, of which 14 were included in the meta-analyses (in total 2279 couples). The evidence was current to October 2013. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for most comparisons . The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and attrition bias.Ten RCTs compared different methods of timing for IUI. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between hCG injection versus LH surge (odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 18, 1 RCT, 24 women, very low quality evidence), urinary hCG versus recombinant hCG (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.03, 1 RCT, 284 women, low quality evidence) or hCG versus GnRH agonist (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.6, 3 RCTS, 104 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence).Two RCTs compared the optimum time interval from hCG injection to IUI, comparing different time frames that ranged from 24 hours to 48 hours. Only one of these studies reported live birth rates, and found no difference between the groups (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.00, 1 RCT, 204 couples). One study compared early versus late hCG administration and one study compared different dosages of hCG, but neither reported the primary outcome of live birth.We found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)). However, most of these data were very low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in safety and effectiveness between different methods of synchronization of ovulation and insemination. More research is needed.
Topics: Adult; Body Temperature; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Luteinizing Hormone; Male; Ovulation Detection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 25528596
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006942.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Thyroid dysfunction pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy (both hyper- and hypothyroidism) is associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes for mothers and infants in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Thyroid dysfunction pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy (both hyper- and hypothyroidism) is associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes for mothers and infants in the short- and long-term. Managing the thyroid dysfunction (e.g. thyroxine for hypothyroidism, or antithyroid medication for hyperthyroidism) may improve outcomes. The best method of screening to identify and subsequently manage thyroid dysfunction pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy is unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different screening methods (and subsequent management) for thyroid dysfunction pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy on maternal and infant outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, comparing any screening method (e.g. tool, program, guideline/protocol) for detecting thyroid dysfunction (including hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, and/or thyroid autoimmunity) pre-pregnancy or during pregnancy with no screening, or alternative screening methods.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of studies, extracted and checked data accuracy, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two randomised controlled trials (involving 26,408 women) - these trials were considered to be at low risk of bias. Universal screening (screening all women) versus case finding (screening only those at perceived increased risk) in pregnancy for thyroid dysfunctionOne trial (4562 women) compared universal screening with case finding for thyroid dysfunction. Before 11 weeks' gestation, women in the universal screening group, and 'high-risk' women in the case finding group had their sera tested for TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone), fT4 (free thyroxine) and TPO-Ab (thyroid peroxidase antibody); women with hypothyroidism (TSH > 2.5 mIU/litre) received levothyroxine; women with hyperthyroidism (undetectable TSH and elevated fT4) received antithyroid medication.In regards to this review's primary outcomes, compared with the case finding group, more women in the universal screening group were diagnosed with hypothyroidism (risk ratio (RR) 3.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.91 to 5.20; 4562 women; GRADE: high quality evidence), with a trend towards more women being diagnosed with hyperthyroidism (RR 4.50, 95% CI 0.97 to 20.82; 4562 women; P = 0.05; GRADE: moderate quality evidence). No clear differences were seen in the risks of pre-eclampsia (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.18; 4516 women; GRADE: moderate quality evidence), or preterm birth (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.24; 4516 women; GRADE: high quality evidence) between groups. This trial did not report on neurosensory disability for the infant as a child.Considering this review's secondary outcomes, more women in the universal screening group received pharmacological treatment for thyroid dysfunction (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.91 to 5.20; 4562 women). No clear differences between groups were observed for miscarriage (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.19; 4516 women; GRADE: moderate quality evidence), fetal and neonatal death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.02; 4516 infants; GRADE: moderate quality evidence), or other secondary outcomes: pregnancy-induced hypertension, gestational diabetes, congestive heart failure, thyroid storm, mode of birth (caesarean section), preterm labour, placental abruption, respiratory distress syndrome, low birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, or other congenital malformations. The trial did not report on a number of outcomes including adverse effects associated with the intervention. Universal screening versus no screening in pregnancy for hypothyroidismOne trial (21,846 women) compared universal screening with no screening for hypothyroidism. Before 15 + 6 weeks' gestation, women in the universal screening group had their sera tested; women who screened 'positive' (TSH > 97.5th percentile, fT4 < 2.5th percentile, or both) received levothyroxine.Considering primary review outcomes, compared with the no screening group, more women in the universal screening screened 'positive' for hypothyroidism (RR 998.18, 95% CI 62.36 to 15,978.48; 21,839 women; GRADE: high quality evidence). No data were provided for the outcome pre-eclampsia, and for preterm birth, the trial reported rates of 5.6% and 7.9% for the screening and no screening groups respectively (it was unclear if these percentages related to the entire cohort or women who screened positive). No clear difference was seen for neurosensory disability for the infant as a child (three-year follow-up IQ score < 85) (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.22; 794 infants; GRADE: moderate quality evidence).More women in the universal screening group received pharmacological treatment for thyroid dysfunction (RR 1102.90, 95% CI 69.07 to 17,610.46; 1050 women); 10% had their dose lowered because of low TSH, high fT4 or minor side effects. No clear differences were observed for other secondary outcomes, including developmental delay/intellectual impairment at three years. Most of our secondary outcomes, including miscarriage, fetal or neonatal death were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the existing evidence, though universal screening for thyroid dysfunction in pregnancy increases the number of women diagnosed with hypothyroidism who can be subsequently treated, it does not clearly impact (benefit or harm) maternal and infant outcomes.While universal screening versus case finding for thyroid dysfunction increased diagnosis and subsequent treatment, we found no clear differences for the primary outcomes: pre-eclampsia or preterm birth. No clear differences were seen for secondary outcomes, including miscarriage and fetal or neonatal death; data were lacking for the primary outcome: neurosensory disability for the infant as a child, and for many secondary outcomes. Though universal screening versus no screening for hypothyroidism similarly increased diagnosis and subsequent treatment, no clear difference was seen for the primary outcome: neurosensory disability for the infant as a child (IQ < 85 at three years); data were lacking for the other primary outcomes: pre-eclampsia and preterm birth, and for the majority of secondary outcomes.For outcomes assessed using the GRADE approach the evidence was considered to be moderate or high quality, with any downgrading of the evidence based on the presence of wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect.More evidence is needed to assess the benefits or harms of different screening methods for thyroid dysfunction in pregnancy, on maternal, infant and child health outcomes. Future trials should assess impacts on use of health services and costs, and be adequately powered to evaluate the effects on short- and long-term outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Hypothyroidism; Infant Health; Infant, Newborn; Mass Screening; Pre-Eclampsia; Preconception Care; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thyroid Diseases
PubMed: 26387772
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011263.pub2 -
Fertility and Sterility Apr 2023Oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional ovarian stimulation (COS) in subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome. To... (Review)
Review
Oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional ovarian stimulation (COS) in subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVM compared with COS in women with predicted hyperresponse to gonadotropins, we searched the published literature for relevant studies comparing any IVM protocol with any COS protocol followed by in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. A systematic review was undertaken on 3 eligible prospective studies. Live birth rate was not significantly lower after IVM vs. COS (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] of 0.56 [0.32-1.01] overall, 0.83 [0.63-1.10] for human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)-triggered IVM [hCG-IVM] and 0.45 [0.18-1.13] for non-hCG-triggered IVM [non-hCG-IVM]), irrespective of the stage of transferred embryos. Data from nonrandomized studies generally showed either significantly low or statistically comparable rates of live birth with IVM vs. COS. Most studies have not identified any significant difference between IVM and COS with respect to the rates of obstetric or perinatal complications, apart from a potentially higher rate of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. The development of offspring from IVM and COS with in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection appears to be similar. Additional research is needed to identify which patient populations will benefit most from IVM, to define the appropriate clinical protocol, and to develop the optimal culture system.
Topics: Male; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Prospective Studies; Semen; Fertilization in Vitro; In Vitro Oocyte Maturation Techniques; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Infertility, Female; Pregnancy Rate; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Oocytes
PubMed: 36754159
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.01.046 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022To investigate the risk of preterm birth in women with a placenta previa or a low-lying placenta for different cut-offs of gestational age and to evaluate preventive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the risk of preterm birth in women with a placenta previa or a low-lying placenta for different cut-offs of gestational age and to evaluate preventive interventions.
SEARCH AND METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, WHO-ICTRP and clinicaltrials.gov were searched until December 2021. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and case-control studies assessing preterm birth in women with placenta previa or low-lying placenta with a placental edge within 2 cm of the internal os in the second or third trimester were eligible for inclusion. Pooled proportions and odds ratios for the risk of preterm birth before 37, 34, 32 and 28 weeks of gestation were calculated. Additionally, the results of the evaluation of preventive interventions for preterm birth in these women are described.
RESULTS
In total, 34 studies were included, 24 reporting on preterm birth and 9 on preventive interventions. The pooled proportions were 46% (95% CI [39 - 53%]), 17% (95% CI [11 - 25%]), 10% (95% CI [7 - 13%]) and 2% (95% CI [1 - 3%]), regarding preterm birth <37, <34, <32 and <28 weeks in women with placenta previa. For low-lying placentas the risk of preterm birth was 30% (95% CI [19 - 43%]) and 1% (95% CI [0 - 6%]) before 37 and 34 weeks, respectively. Women with a placenta previa were more likely to have a preterm birth compared to women with a low-lying placenta or women without a placenta previa for all gestational ages. The studies about preventive interventions all showed potential prolongation of pregnancy with the use of intramuscular progesterone, intramuscular progesterone + cerclage or pessary.
CONCLUSIONS
Both women with a placenta previa and a low-lying placenta have an increased risk of preterm birth. This increased risk is consistent across all severities of preterm birth between 28-37 weeks of gestation. Women with placenta previa have a higher risk of preterm birth than women with a low-lying placenta have. Cervical cerclage, pessary and intramuscular progesterone all might have benefit for both women with placenta previa and low-lying placenta, but data in this population are lacking and inconsistent, so that solid conclusions about their effectiveness cannot be drawn.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42019123675.
Topics: Cervix Uteri; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Placenta; Placenta Previa; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Progesterone
PubMed: 36120450
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.921220 -
JBRA Assisted Reproduction Mar 2023The aim of this study is to analyze the efficacy of the dual trigger (human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) + GnRH agonists) compared to the conventional trigger (hCG) in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to analyze the efficacy of the dual trigger (human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) + GnRH agonists) compared to the conventional trigger (hCG) in terms of oocyte retrieval (number and oocyte maturity), fertilization rate or number of embryos with two pronuclei, number of high-quality embryos, number of transferred embryos, number of cryopreserved embryos, implantation rate, positive β-hCG rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, abortion rate, and live birth rate.
METHODS
This search performed in this systematic review included all literature published in the PubMed database of studies on controlled ovarian stimulation with dual trigger compared with conventional trigger. The meta-analysis included clinical trials and prospective cohort studies.
RESULTS
Statistically significant differences between groups (dual trigger vs. hCG trigger) in terms of number of oocytes retrieved and live birth rate favored the dual trigger protocol. No statistically significant differences were found in the other studied variables. A tend favoring the dual trigger protocol was observed in all studied parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
Dual trigger seems to be more effective in GnRH antagonist cycles in terms of embryo and pregnancy outcome.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic; Prospective Studies; Ovulation Induction; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Fertilization in Vitro; Oocytes; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36356171
DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20220035