-
BMJ Open Sep 2023This study aimed to synthesise available evidence on the efficacy of antenatal corticosteroid (ACS) therapy among women at risk of imminent preterm birth with...
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to synthesise available evidence on the efficacy of antenatal corticosteroid (ACS) therapy among women at risk of imminent preterm birth with pregestational/gestational diabetes, chorioamnionitis or fetal growth restriction (FGR), or planned caesarean section (CS) in the late preterm period.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Global Index Medicus was conducted for all comparative randomised or non-randomised interventional studies in the four subpopulations on 6 June 2021. Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomised Studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool were used to assess the risk of bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool assessed the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies involving 5018 pregnant women and 10 819 neonates were included. Data on women with diabetes were limited, and evidence on women undergoing planned CS was inconclusive. ACS use was associated with possibly reduced odds of neonatal death (pooled OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.85, low certainty), intraventricular haemorrhage (pooled OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.72, low certainty) and respiratory distress syndrome (pooled OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.77, low certainty) in women with chorioamnionitis. Among women with FGR, the rates of surfactant use (pooled OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.62, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (pooled OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.66, moderate certainty) and oxygen therapy (pooled OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.77, moderate certainty) were probably reduced; however, the rate of hypoglycaemia probably increased (pooled OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.27 to 3.32, moderate certainty).
CONCLUSIONS
There is a paucity of evidence on ACS for women who have diabetes. ACS therapy may have benefits in women with chorioamnionitis and is probably beneficial in FGR. There is limited direct trial evidence on ACS efficacy in women undergoing planned CS in the late preterm period, though the totality of evidence suggests it is probably beneficial.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021267816.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Cesarean Section; Chorioamnionitis; Premature Birth; Diabetes, Gestational; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Fetal Growth Retardation
PubMed: 37739474
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065070 -
American Journal of Obstetrics &... Nov 2023Low maternal selenium status has been associated with poor pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth. This study aimed to evaluate available evidence of the effects of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Low maternal selenium status has been associated with poor pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth. This study aimed to evaluate available evidence of the effects of selenium supplementation during pregnancy on preterm birth and related maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched on June 23, 2022, without language or time restrictions.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized interventional studies were included if they compared the effects of selenium supplementation with placebo or no treatment among pregnant women. The review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (identification number: CRD42022383669).
METHODS
For outcomes reported by ≥1 study, a meta-analysis was conducted. Because of the small number of studies and high clinical heterogeneity between populations, random-effects models were used. The Risk of Bias 2 and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tools were used to assess study quality, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation analysis was used to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
RESULTS
Literature searches identified 5105 unique records, and 32 studies met the eligibility criteria. Of note, 11 reports were not included for analysis following research integrity assessments. Moreover, 10 trials and 3 observational studies met the inclusion criteria; however, only 8 trials (1851 women) and 1 prospective cohort study (71,728 women) reported on at least 1 review outcome. Our results could not determine the effect of selenium supplementation on preterm birth at <37 weeks of gestation (relative risk, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-1.63; very low certainty evidence) and <34 weeks of gestation (relative risk, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.44; very low certainty evidence).
CONCLUSION
There is limited evidence on the effects of selenium supplementation during pregnancy. Further trials, with larger sample sizes, more representative populations, and reliable assessment of maternal selenium status at trial entry, are required.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Pregnant Women; Selenium; Premature Birth; Dietary Supplements; Prospective Studies; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 37716440
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.101160 -
Virology Journal Sep 2023The effect of HBV on neonatal and maternal outcomes can create a basis for more accurate clinical decision-making. So, the aim of this meta-analysis is to detrmine the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The effect of HBV on neonatal and maternal outcomes can create a basis for more accurate clinical decision-making. So, the aim of this meta-analysis is to detrmine the effect of chronic hepatitis B virus on the risk of pregnancy outcomes by combining cohort studies.
METHODS
International databases in this meta-analysis included the Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), SPORT Discuss via the EBSCO interface, PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, which were searched up to April 2023. All cohort studies reporting the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were included in the study. The quality assessment was done based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).
RESULTS
Finally, thirty-five cohort studies were selected for meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest included pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, abortion, preterm birth, infant death, and other related outcomes. Results showed that the pooled RR for incident gestational diabetes in pregnant women with choronic hepatitis B infection was 1.16 (RR: 1.16; 95% CI 1.13-1.18; I-square: 92.89%; P value: 0.00). Similarly, the association between the presence of hepatitis B infection in pregnant women and the occurrence of pre-eclampsia was 1.10 (RR: 1.10; 95% CI 1.04-1.16; I-square: 92.06%; P value: 0.00). The risk of preterm delivery in pregnant women with hepatitis B infection was 1.17 times that of pregnant women without hepatitis B infection (RR: 1.17; 95% CI 1.14-1.20; I-squared: 94.32%; P value: 0.00).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis found that hepatitis B infection during pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes, preterm delivery, pre-eclampsia, and eclampsia. However, confirmation of this association, as well as the specific biological pathways involved in the association between HBV infection and pregnancy outcomes, requires further investigation.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Infant; Humans; Female; Hepatitis B virus; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Diabetes, Gestational; Pre-Eclampsia; Premature Birth; Hepatitis B; Cohort Studies
PubMed: 37710321
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-023-02182-0 -
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia E... Aug 2023To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes of women with singleton pregnancies, after spontaneous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes of women with singleton pregnancies, after spontaneous conception, and with the diagnosis of amniotic sludge before 37 weeks of gestational age.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted a search on the PubMed, Cochrane, Bireme, and Theses databases until June 2022.
SELECTION OF STUDIES
Using the keywords or or , we found 263 articles, 132 of which were duplicates, and 70 were discarded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria.
DATA COLLECTION
The articles retrieved were analyzed by 2 reviewers; 61 were selected for full-text analysis, 18 were included for a qualitative analysis, and 14, for a quantitative analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Among the maternal outcomes analyzed, there was an increased risk of preterm labor (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 1.45-2.03), premature rupture of ovular membranes (95%CI: 1.99-3.79), and clinical (95%CI: 1.41-6.19) and histological chorioamnionitis (95%CI: 1.75-3.12). Regarding the fetal outcomes, there was a significant increase in the risk of morbidity (95%CI: 1.80-3.17), mortality (95%CI: 1.14-18.57), admission to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU; 95%CI: 1.17-1.95), and neonatal sepsis (95%CI: 2.29-7.55).
CONCLUSION
The results of the present study indicate that the presence of amniotic sludge is a risk marker for preterm delivery. Despite the heterogeneity of the studies analyzed, even in patients with other risk factors for prematurity, such as short cervix and previous preterm delivery, the presence of amniotic sludge increases the risk of premature labor. Moreover, antibiotic therapy seems to be a treatment for amniotic sludge, and it may prolong pregnancy.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Female; Premature Birth; Sewage; Gestational Age; Risk Factors; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 37683661
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1772189 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Dec 2023The association between extreme birth spacing and adverse outcomes is controversial, and available evidence is fragmented into different classifications of birth spacing. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The association between extreme birth spacing and adverse outcomes is controversial, and available evidence is fragmented into different classifications of birth spacing.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of observational studies to evaluate the association between birth spacing (i.e., interpregnancy interval and interoutcome interval) and adverse outcomes (i.e., pregnancy complications, adverse birth outcomes). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model, and the dose-response relationships were evaluated using generalized least squares trend estimation.
RESULTS
A total of 129 studies involving 46 874 843 pregnancies were included. In the general population, compared with an interpregnancy interval of 18-23 months, extreme intervals (<6 months and ≥ 60 months) were associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, including preterm birth, small for gestational age, low birthweight, fetal death, birth defects, early neonatal death, and premature rupture of fetal membranes (pooled OR range: 1.08-1.56; p < 0.05). The dose-response analyses further confirmed these J-shaped relationships (p < 0.001-0.009). Long interpregnancy interval was only associated with an increased risk of preeclampsia and gestational diabetes (p < 0.005 and p < 0.001, respectively). Similar associations were observed between interoutcome interval and risk of low birthweight and preterm birth (p < 0.001). Moreover, interoutcome interval of ≥60 months was associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery (pooled OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.04-2.83). For pregnancies following preterm births, an interpregnancy interval of 9 months was not associated with an increased risk of preterm birth, according to dose-response analyses (p = 0.008). Based on limited evidence, we did not observe significant associations between interpregnancy interval or interoutcome interval after pregnancy losses and risk of small for gestational age, fetal death, miscarriage, or preeclampsia (pooled OR range: 0.76-1.21; p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Extreme birth spacing has extensive adverse effects on maternal and infant health. In the general population, interpregnancy interval of 18-23 months may be associated with potential benefits for both mothers and infants. For women with previous preterm birth, the optimal birth spacing may be 9 months.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Female; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Birth Intervals; Pre-Eclampsia; Birth Weight; Abortion, Spontaneous; Pregnancy Complications; Fetal Growth Retardation; Mothers; Fetal Death
PubMed: 37675816
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14648 -
BMJ Open Sep 2023We conducted a systematic review to evaluate associations between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes and maternal non-obstetric serious...
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review to evaluate associations between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes and maternal non-obstetric serious adverse events (SAEs), taking into consideration confounding and temporal biases.
METHODS
Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Embase Classic+Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched to June 2021 for observational studies assessing associations between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and maternal non-obstetric SAEs and adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, small-for-gestational-age birth and congenital anomalies. Studies of live attenuated vaccines, single-arm cohort studies and abstract-only publications were excluded. Records were screened using a liberal accelerated approach initially, followed by a dual independent approach for full-text screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted, where two or more studies met methodological criteria for inclusion. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence certainty.
RESULTS
Of 9443 records screened, 63 studies were included. Twenty-nine studies (24 cohort and 5 case-control) evaluated seasonal influenza vaccination (trivalent and/or quadrivalent) versus no vaccination and were the focus of our prioritised syntheses; 34 studies of pandemic vaccines (2009 A/H1N1 and others), combinations of pandemic and seasonal vaccines, and seasonal versus seasonal vaccines were also reviewed. Control for confounding and temporal biases was inconsistent across studies, limiting pooling of data. Meta-analyses for preterm birth, spontaneous abortion and small-for-gestational-age birth demonstrated no significant associations with seasonal influenza vaccination. Immortal time bias was observed in a sensitivity analysis of meta-analysing risk-based preterm birth data. In descriptive summaries for stillbirth, congenital anomalies and maternal non-obstetric SAEs, no significant association with increased risk was found in any studies. All evidence was of very low certainty.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence of very low certainty suggests that seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with adverse birth outcomes or maternal non-obstetric SAEs. Appropriate control of confounding and temporal biases in future studies would improve the evidence base.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Abortion, Spontaneous; Stillbirth; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza, Human; Premature Birth
PubMed: 37673449
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066182 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Mar 2024This study aimed to quantify the association between mode of operative delivery in the second stage of labor (cesarean delivery vs operative vaginal delivery) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to quantify the association between mode of operative delivery in the second stage of labor (cesarean delivery vs operative vaginal delivery) and spontaneous preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, EmCare, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science: Core Collection, and Scopus were searched from database inception to April 1, 2023.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
All retrospective cohort studies with participants who had a second-stage cesarean delivery (defined as intrapartum cesarean delivery at full cervical dilation) or operative vaginal delivery (including forceps- and/or vacuum-assisted delivery) and that reported the rate of preterm birth (either spontaneous or not specified) in subsequent pregnancy were included.
METHODS
Both a descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis were performed. A meta-analysis was performed for dichotomous data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model and used the odds ratio as an effect measure with 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's 2022 Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposure tool.
RESULTS
After screening 2671 articles from 7 databases, a total of 18 retrospective cohort studies encompassing 605,138 patients were included. The pooled rates of spontaneous preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy were 6.9% (12 studies) after second-stage cesarean delivery and 2.6% (8 studies) after operative vaginal delivery. A total of 7 studies encompassing 75,460 patients compared the primary outcome of spontaneous preterm birth after second-stage cesarean delivery vs operative vaginal delivery in an index pregnancy with an odds ratio of 2.01 (95% confidence interval, 1.57-2.58) in favor of operative vaginal delivery. However, most studies did not include important confounding factors, did not address exposure misclassification because of failed operative vaginal delivery, and considered operative vaginal delivery as a homogeneous category with no distinction between forceps- and vacuum-assisted deliveries.
CONCLUSION
Although a synthesis of the existing literature suggests that the risk of spontaneous preterm birth is higher in those with a previous second-stage cesarean delivery than in those with operative vaginal delivery, the risk of bias in these studies is very high. Findings should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Premature Birth; Retrospective Studies; Labor Stage, Second; Cohort Studies; Delivery, Obstetric
PubMed: 37673234
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.08.033 -
Medicine Aug 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of low-dose aspirin combined with calcium supplements for the prevention of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of low-dose aspirin combined with calcium supplements for the prevention of preeclampsia.
METHODS
China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, Wanfang, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception until December 2022. Randomized controlled trials investigating the preventive use of aspirin in combination with calcium supplementation for preeclampsia in high-risk pregnant women were included. The quality of the literature was evaluated, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software to analyze the clinical efficacy of low-dose aspirin combined with calcium supplementation in preventing preeclampsia.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis, and compared with the control group, the experimental group had lower incidence rates of preeclampsia with gestational hypertension (odds ratios [OR]: 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11-0.28), preeclampsia (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.10-0.37), gestational hypertension (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07-0.31), preterm birth (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.16-0.44), postpartum hemorrhage (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.08-0.27), and fetal growth restriction (OR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.08-0.33).
CONCLUSION
Compared with aspirin alone, low-dose aspirin combined with calcium supplementation was more effective in preventing preeclampsia, reduced the risk of preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage, and promoted fetal growth. This intervention has clinical value and should be considered for high-risk pregnant women.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Calcium; Pre-Eclampsia; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Premature Birth; Calcium, Dietary; Aspirin; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37653760
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034620 -
Environmental Health Perspectives Aug 2023More intense cyclones are expected in the future as a result of climate change. A comprehensive review is urgently needed to summarize and update the evidence on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
More intense cyclones are expected in the future as a result of climate change. A comprehensive review is urgently needed to summarize and update the evidence on the health effects of cyclones.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to provide a systematic review with meta-analysis of current evidence on the risks of all reported health outcomes related to cyclones and to identify research gaps and make recommendations for further research.
METHODS
We systematically searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) for relevant studies in English published before 21 December 2022. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we developed inclusion criteria, screened the literature, and included epidemiological studies with a quantitative risk assessment of any mortality or morbidity-related outcomes associated with cyclone exposures. We extracted key data and assessed study quality for these studies and applied meta-analyses to quantify the overall effect estimate and the heterogeneity of comparable studies.
RESULTS
In total, 71 studies from eight countries (the United States, China, India, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Australia, Brazil), mostly the United States, were included in the review. These studies investigated the all-cause and cause-specific mortality, as well as morbidity related to injury, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), respiratory diseases, infectious diseases, mental disorders, adverse birth outcomes, cancer, diabetes, and other outcomes (e.g., suicide rates, gender-based violence). Studies mostly included only one high-amplitude cyclone (cyclones with a Saffir-Simpson category of 4 or 5, i.e., Hurricanes Katrina or Sandy) and focused on mental disorders morbidity and all-cause mortality and hospitalizations. Consistently elevated risks of overall mental health morbidity, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as all-cause mortality or hospitalizations, were found to be associated with cyclones. However, the results for other outcomes were generally mixed or limited. A statistically significant overall relative risk of 1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04, 1.13], 1.18 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.25), 1.15 (95% CI: 1.13, 1.18), 1.26 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.50) was observed for all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, respiratory disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease hospitalizations, respectively, after cyclone exposures, whereas no statistically significant risks were identified for diabetes mortality, heart disease mortality, and preterm birth. High between-study heterogeneity was observed.
CONCLUSIONS
There is generally consistent evidence supporting the notion that high-amplitude cyclones could significantly increase risks of mental disorders, especially for PTSD, as well as mortality and hospitalizations, but the evidence for other health outcomes, such as chronic diseases (e.g., CVDs, cancer, diabetes), and adverse birth outcomes remains limited or inconsistent. More studies with rigorous exposure assessment, of larger spatial and temporal scales, and using advanced modeling strategy are warranted in the future, especially for those small cyclone-prone countries or regions with low and middle incomes. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12158.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Female; Cyclonic Storms; Premature Birth; Mental Disorders; Australia; Cardiovascular Diseases; Epidemiologic Studies
PubMed: 37639476
DOI: 10.1289/EHP12158 -
Scientific Reports Aug 2023Prematurity is the leading cause of perinatal mortality and the morbidity among children under the age of 5. The prevalence of preterm birth is between 5 and 18%... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Prematurity is the leading cause of perinatal mortality and the morbidity among children under the age of 5. The prevalence of preterm birth is between 5 and 18% worldwide. Approximately 30% of preterm deliveries occur as a consequence of fetal or maternal infections. Bacterial vaginosis can increase the risk of ascending infections. However, there is no recommendation or protocol for screening of abnormal vaginal flora. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effectiveness of routine screening of abnormal vaginal flora during pregnancy care. We conducted our systematic search in the following databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Studies reporting on pregnant women with no symptoms of bacterial vaginosis were included in our analysis if they provided data on the outcome of their pregnancy. The intervention group went through screening of abnormal vaginal flora in addition to routine pregnancy care. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used as effect size measure. From each study the total number of patients and number of events was extracted in both the intervention and control arm to calculate OR. Altogether we included 13 trials with 143,534 patients. The screening methods were Gram stain, pH screening, pH self-screening and pH screening combined with Gram stain. Regular screening of vaginal flora compared to no screening significantly reduces the odds of preterm birth before 37 weeks (8.98% vs 9.42%; OR 0.71, CI 0.57-0.87), birthweight under 2500 g (6.53% vs 7.24%; OR 0.64, CI 0.50-0.81), preterm birth before 32 weeks (1.35% vs 2.03%; OR 0.51, CI 0.31-0.85) and birthweight under 1000 g (0.86% vs 2.2%; OR 0.33, CI 0.19-0.57). In conclusion, the routine screening of abnormal vaginal flora might prevent preterm birth, extreme preterm birth, low birthweight deliveries and very low birthweight deliveries. Further research is needed to assess the problem more accurately.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Child; Humans; Female; Vaginosis, Bacterial; Birth Weight; Premature Birth; Vagina; Blood Coagulation Tests
PubMed: 37626108
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-40993-x