-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) May 2022To investigate the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse outcomes of pregnancy after adjustment for at least minimal confounding factors. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse outcomes of pregnancy after adjustment for at least minimal confounding factors.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Web of Science, PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1 January 1990 to 1 November 2021.
REVIEW METHODS
Cohort studies and control arms of trials reporting complications of pregnancy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus were eligible for inclusion. Based on the use of insulin, studies were divided into three subgroups: no insulin use (patients never used insulin during the course of the disease), insulin use (different proportions of patients were treated with insulin), and insulin use not reported. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the status of the country (developed or developing), quality of the study, diagnostic criteria, and screening method. Meta-regression models were applied based on the proportion of patients who had received insulin.
RESULTS
156 studies with 7 506 061 pregnancies were included, and 50 (32.1%) showed a low or medium risk of bias. In studies with no insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, women with gestational diabetes mellitus had increased odds of caesarean section (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.32), preterm delivery (1.51, 1.26 to 1.80), low one minute Apgar score (1.43, 1.01 to 2.03), macrosomia (1.70, 1.23 to 2.36), and infant born large for gestational age (1.57, 1.25 to 1.97). In studies with insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, the odds of having an infant large for gestational age (odds ratio 1.61, 1.09 to 2.37), or with respiratory distress syndrome (1.57, 1.19 to 2.08) or neonatal jaundice (1.28, 1.02 to 1.62), or requiring admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (2.29, 1.59 to 3.31), were higher in women with gestational diabetes mellitus than in those without diabetes. No clear evidence was found for differences in the odds of instrumental delivery, shoulder dystocia, postpartum haemorrhage, stillbirth, neonatal death, low five minute Apgar score, low birth weight, and small for gestational age between women with and without gestational diabetes mellitus after adjusting for confounders. Country status, adjustment for body mass index, and screening methods significantly contributed to heterogeneity between studies for several adverse outcomes of pregnancy.
CONCLUSIONS
When adjusted for confounders, gestational diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with pregnancy complications. The findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the adverse outcomes of pregnancy related to gestational diabetes mellitus. Future primary studies should routinely consider adjusting for a more complete set of prognostic factors.
REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021265837.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Fetal Macrosomia; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Insulin; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 35613728
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067946 -
International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2022Pregestational type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are associated with increased rates of adverse maternal and... (Review)
Review
Pregestational type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are associated with increased rates of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Adverse outcomes are more common in women with pregestational diabetes compared to GDM; although, conflicting results have been reported. This systematic review aims to summarise and synthesise studies that have compared adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnancies complicated by pregestational diabetes and GDM. Three databases, Pubmed, EBSCOhost and Scopus were searched to identify studies that compared adverse outcomes in pregnancies complicated by pregestational T1DM and T2DM, and GDM. A total of 20 studies met the inclusion criteria and are included in this systematic review. Thirteen pregnancy outcomes including caesarean section, preterm birth, congenital anomalies, pre-eclampsia, neonatal hypoglycaemia, macrosomia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, stillbirth, Apgar score, large for gestational age, induction of labour, respiratory distress syndrome and miscarriages were compared. Findings from this review confirm that pregestational diabetes is associated with more frequent pregnancy complications than GDM. Taken together, this review highlights the risks posed by all types of maternal diabetes and the need to improve care and educate women on the importance of maintaining optimal glycaemic control to mitigate these risks.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth
PubMed: 36078559
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710846 -
Thyroid : Official Journal of the... Apr 2016The impact of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) and of levothyroxine replacement in pregnant women with SCH is unclear. The aims of this study were to assess (i) the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The impact of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) and of levothyroxine replacement in pregnant women with SCH is unclear. The aims of this study were to assess (i) the impact of SCH during pregnancy on maternal and neonatal outcomes, and (ii) the effect of levothyroxine replacement therapy in these patients.
METHODS
Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to January 2015. Randomized trials and cohort studies of pregnant women with SCH that examined adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were included. Reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality in duplicate. Eighteen cohort studies at low-to-moderate risk of bias were included. Compared with euthyroid pregnant women, pregnant women with SCH were at higher risk for pregnancy loss (relative risk [RR] 2.01 [confidence interval (CI) 1.66-2.44]), placental abruption (RR 2.14 [CI 1.23-3.70]), premature rupture of membranes (RR 1.43 [CI 1.04-1.95]), and neonatal death (RR 2.58 [CI 1.41-4.73]). One study at high risk of bias compared pregnant women with SCH who received levothyroxine to those who did not and found no significant decrease in the rate of pregnancy loss, preterm delivery, gestational hypertension, low birth weight, or low Apgar score.
CONCLUSIONS
SCH during pregnancy is associated with multiple adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The value of levothyroxine therapy in preventing these adverse outcomes remains uncertain.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Female; Humans; Hypothyroidism; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Risk Assessment; Thyroxine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26837268
DOI: 10.1089/thy.2015.0418 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Mar 2023To analyze outcomes of singleton pregnancies with idiopathic polyhydramnios through a systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To analyze outcomes of singleton pregnancies with idiopathic polyhydramnios through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, OVID, EBSCO, Cochrane collection and Science Citation Index, were searched from 1946 to 2019. Gray literature and tables of contents of relevant journals were also screened. Prospective and retrospective studies with a control group were included. Two authors independently reviewed the abstracts retrieved from the literature search. Inclusion criteria were: studies documented in English, singleton pregnancy and idiopathic polyhydramnios determined by amniotic fluid volume assessment on ultrasound. Exclusion criteria were: maternal diabetes, fetal structural or chromosomal anomaly, alloimmunization and intrauterine fetal infection.
RESULTS
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, giving a total of 2392 patients with idiopathic polyhydramnios and 160 135 patients with normal amniotic fluid volume. Pregnancies complicated by idiopathic polyhydramnios were at a higher risk of neonatal death (odds ratio (OR), 8.68 (95% CI, 2.91-25.87)), intrauterine fetal demise (OR, 7.64 (95% CI, 2.50-23.38)), neonatal intensive care unit admission (OR, 1.94 (95% CI, 1.45-2.59)), 5-min Apgar score < 7 (OR, 2.21 (95% CI, 1.34-3.62)), macrosomia (OR, 2.93 (95% CI, 2.39-3.59)), malpresentation (OR, 2.73 (95% CI, 2.06-3.61)) and Cesarean delivery (OR, 2.31 (95% CI, 1.79-2.99)).
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggests that pregnancies complicated by idiopathic polyhydramnios are at increased risk of adverse outcome. Future investigations should aim to determine an amniotic fluid volume threshold above which antenatal fetal surveillance is appropriate in the management of these pregnancies. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Polyhydramnios; Pregnancy Outcome; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Amniotic Fluid
PubMed: 35723677
DOI: 10.1002/uog.24973 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Apr 2017To evaluate adverse pregnancy outcomes in singleton pregnancies diagnosed with oligohydramnios through a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate adverse pregnancy outcomes in singleton pregnancies diagnosed with oligohydramnios through a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials.
METHODS
We searched electronic databases via OVID, EBSCO, Web of Science, Google Scholar and others from 1980 to 2015. Prospective and retrospective studies with a control group were included. Two authors independently reviewed the abstracts from the literature search. Inclusion criteria were: studies in English, singleton pregnancy, normal fetal anatomy, intact membranes and oligohydramnios determined by the amniotic fluid index (AFI) technique. We stratified the meta-analysis into two groups according to risk: high risk including studies of oligohydramnios with comorbid conditions (e.g. hypertension) and low risk including studies of isolated oligohydramnios.
RESULTS
Fifteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Nine were high-risk and six were low-risk studies, including 8067 and 27 526 women, respectively. Compared with women with normal AFI, those with isolated oligohydramnios had significantly higher rates of an infant with meconium aspiration syndrome (relative risk (RR), 2.83; 95% CI, 1.38-5.77), Cesarean delivery for fetal distress (RR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.64-2.85) and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.20-2.42). Patients with oligohydramnios and comorbidities were more likely to have an infant with low birth weight (RR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.27-4.34). However, rates of 5-min Apgar score < 7 (RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.69-4.96), NICU admission (RR, 2.09; 95% CI, 0.80-5.45), meconium-stained amniotic fluid (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.62-2.81) and Cesarean delivery for fetal distress (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.81-3.36) were similar to those for women with normal AFI. Stillbirth rates were too low to analyze in the meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
This review helps to delineate which adverse outcomes are increased with oligohydramnios in low-risk pregnancy (NICU admission, Cesarean delivery for fetal distress and meconium aspiration syndrome), but does not provide enough data to determine the optimal timing of delivery in such cases. Oligohydramnios in complicated pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of delivery of an infant with low birth weight, but this may be confounded by the comorbid condition. Therefore, in high-risk pregnancy, management should be dictated by the comorbid condition and not the presence of oligohydramnios. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Birth Weight; Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Oligohydramnios; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 27062200
DOI: 10.1002/uog.15929 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.
OBJECTIVES
To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (25 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e. regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death using the GRADE methodology: all primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = eight; high quality) and less all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = four), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss less than 24 weeks and neonatal death (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = seven), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = three) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = seven). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss equal to/after 24 weeks and neonatal death, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and all fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.
Topics: Amnion; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Continuity of Patient Care; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Midwifery; Models, Organizational; Patient Satisfaction; Perinatal Care; Postnatal Care; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27121907
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5 -
The Lancet. Global Health Jun 2021The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on health-care systems and potentially on pregnancy outcomes, but no systematic synthesis of evidence of this effect has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on health-care systems and potentially on pregnancy outcomes, but no systematic synthesis of evidence of this effect has been undertaken. We aimed to assess the collective evidence on the effects on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes of the pandemic.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the effects of the pandemic on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and Embase in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, from Jan 1, 2020, to Jan 8, 2021, for case-control studies, cohort studies, and brief reports comparing maternal and perinatal mortality, maternal morbidity, pregnancy complications, and intrapartum and neonatal outcomes before and during the pandemic. We also planned to record any additional maternal and offspring outcomes identified. Studies of solely SARS-CoV-2-infected pregnant individuals, as well as case reports, studies without comparison groups, narrative or systematic literature reviews, preprints, and studies reporting on overlapping populations were excluded. Quantitative meta-analysis was done for an outcome when more than one study presented relevant data. Random-effects estimate of the pooled odds ratio (OR) of each outcome were generated with use of the Mantel-Haenszel method. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020211753).
FINDINGS
The search identified 3592 citations, of which 40 studies were included. We identified significant increases in stillbirth (pooled OR 1·28 [95% CI 1·07-1·54]; I=63%; 12 studies, 168 295 pregnancies during and 198 993 before the pandemic) and maternal death (1·37 [1·22-1·53; I=0%, two studies [both from low-income and middle-income countries], 1 237 018 and 2 224 859 pregnancies) during versus before the pandemic. Preterm births before 37 weeks' gestation were not significantly changed overall (0·94 [0·87-1·02]; I=75%; 15 studies, 170 640 and 656 423 pregnancies) but were decreased in high-income countries (0·91 [0·84-0·99]; I=63%; 12 studies, 159 987 and 635 118 pregnancies), where spontaneous preterm birth was also decreased (0·81 [0·67-0·97]; two studies, 4204 and 6818 pregnancies). Mean Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale scores were higher, indicating poorer mental health, during versus before the pandemic (pooled mean difference 0·42 [95% CI 0·02-0·81; three studies, 2330 and 6517 pregnancies). Surgically managed ectopic pregnancies were increased during the pandemic (OR 5·81 [2·16-15·6]; I=26%; three studies, 37 and 272 pregnancies). No overall significant effects were identified for other outcomes included in the quantitative analysis: maternal gestational diabetes; hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; preterm birth before 34 weeks', 32 weeks', or 28 weeks' gestation; iatrogenic preterm birth; labour induction; modes of delivery (spontaneous vaginal delivery, caesarean section, or instrumental delivery); post-partum haemorrhage; neonatal death; low birthweight (<2500 g); neonatal intensive care unit admission; or Apgar score less than 7 at 5 min.
INTERPRETATION
Global maternal and fetal outcomes have worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an increase in maternal deaths, stillbirth, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, and maternal depression. Some outcomes show considerable disparity between high-resource and low-resource settings. There is an urgent need to prioritise safe, accessible, and equitable maternity care within the strategic response to this pandemic and in future health crises.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: COVID-19; Female; Global Health; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 33811827
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00079-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review (Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour), last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined-spinal-epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised trials in this update.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-two trials met the inclusion criteria and we have included data from 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women. Four trials included more than two arms. Thirty-four trials compared epidural with opioids, seven compared epidural with no analgesia, one trial compared epidural with acu-stimulation, one trial compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, and one trial compared epidural with continuous midwifery support and other analgesia. Risks of bias varied throughout the included studies; six out of 40 studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for every bias domain, while most studies were at high or unclear risk of detection bias. Quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from moderate to low quality.Pain intensity as measured using pain scores was lower in women with epidural analgesia when compared to women who received opioids (standardised mean difference -2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.56 to -0.73; 1133 women; studies = 5; I = 98%; low-quality evidence) and a higher proportion were satisfied with their pain relief, reporting it to be "excellent or very good" (average risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08; 1911 women; studies = 7; I = 97%; low-quality evidence). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity in both these outcomes. There was a substantial decrease in the need for additional pain relief in women receiving epidural analgesia compared with opioid analgesia (average RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25; 5099 women; studies = 16; I = 73%; Tau = 1.89; Chi = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low-quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate-quality evidence), and maternal long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias.Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long-term neonatal outcomes were not reported.Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu-stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non-epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long-term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non-epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk
PubMed: 29781504
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub4 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Sep 2021Prenatal depression affects 20.7 percent of women worldwide, which was associated with preterm birth, low birth weight and Apgar score, as well as cognitive, emotional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prenatal depression affects 20.7 percent of women worldwide, which was associated with preterm birth, low birth weight and Apgar score, as well as cognitive, emotional and behavioral development disorders. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to retrieve the latest and best evidence about music, massage, yoga and exercise in the prevention and treatment of prenatal depression, and to preliminarily compare the four methods to explore the most effective means. We also compared different types of yoga and music, in order to find the most effective type of intervention.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was carried out through six databases on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Effects were summarized by a random effects model using mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.
RESULTS
This research found low to very low evidence that yoga, exercise, music and massage could reduce antenatal depression. Among them, music may be the most effective intervention, and integrated yoga other than simple yoga would improve prenatal depression. The effect of Chinese Medicine Five Element Music may be better than ordinary music.
CONCLUSION
It is important to support prenatal depression patients to make informed decisions about their behavior therapy.
Topics: Depression; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Massage; Meditation; Music; Pregnancy; Yoga
PubMed: 34147972
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.05.122 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Historically, women have generally been attended and supported by other women during labour. However, in hospitals worldwide, continuous support during labour has often...
BACKGROUND
Historically, women have generally been attended and supported by other women during labour. However, in hospitals worldwide, continuous support during labour has often become the exception rather than the routine.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to assess the effects, on women and their babies, of continuous, one-to-one intrapartum support compared with usual care, in any setting. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the effects of continuous support are influenced by:1. Routine practices and policies in the birth environment that may affect a woman's autonomy, freedom of movement and ability to cope with labour, including: policies about the presence of support people of the woman's own choosing; epidural analgesia; and continuous electronic fetal monitoring.2. The provider's relationship to the woman and to the facility: staff member of the facility (and thus has additional loyalties or responsibilities); not a staff member and not part of the woman's social network (present solely for the purpose of providing continuous support, e.g. a doula); or a person chosen by the woman from family members and friends;3. Timing of onset (early or later in labour);4. Model of support (support provided only around the time of childbirth or extended to include support during the antenatal and postpartum periods);5. Country income level (high-income compared to low- and middle-income).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 June 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials, cluster-randomised trials comparing continuous support during labour with usual care. Quasi-randomised and cross-over designs were not eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We sought additional information from the trial authors. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 27 trials, and 26 trials involving 15,858 women provided usable outcome data for analysis. These trials were conducted in 17 different countries: 13 trials were conducted in high-income settings; 13 trials in middle-income settings; and no studies in low-income settings. Women allocated to continuous support were more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.12; 21 trials, 14,369 women; low-quality evidence) and less likely to report negative ratings of or feelings about their childbirth experience (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79; 11 trials, 11,133 women; low-quality evidence) and to use any intrapartum analgesia (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96; 15 trials, 12,433 women). In addition, their labours were shorter (MD -0.69 hours, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.34; 13 trials, 5429 women; low-quality evidence), they were less likely to have a caesarean birth (average RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.88; 24 trials, 15,347 women; low-quality evidence) or instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96; 19 trials, 14,118 women), regional analgesia (average RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; 9 trials, 11,444 women), or a baby with a low five-minute Apgar score (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.85; 14 trials, 12,615 women). Data from two trials for postpartum depression were not combined due to differences in women, hospitals and care providers included; both trials found fewer women developed depressive symptomatology if they had been supported in birth, although this may have been a chance result in one of the studies (low-quality evidence). There was no apparent impact on other intrapartum interventions, maternal or neonatal complications, such as admission to special care nursery (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.25; 7 trials, 8897 women; low-quality evidence), and exclusive or any breastfeeding at any time point (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16; 4 trials, 5584 women; low-quality evidence).Subgroup analyses suggested that continuous support was most effective at reducing caesarean birth, when the provider was present in a doula role, and in settings in which epidural analgesia was not routinely available. Continuous labour support in settings where women were not permitted to have companions of their choosing with them in labour, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous vaginal birth and lower likelihood of a caesarean birth. Subgroup analysis of trials conducted in high-income compared with trials in middle-income countries suggests that continuous labour support offers similar benefits to women and babies for most outcomes, with the exception of caesarean birth, where studies from middle-income countries showed a larger reduction in caesarean birth. No conclusions could be drawn about low-income settings, electronic fetal monitoring, the timing of onset of continuous support or model of support.Risk of bias varied in included studies: no study clearly blinded women and personnel; only one study sufficiently blinded outcome assessors. All other domains were of varying degrees of risk of bias. The quality of evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding in studies and other limitations in study designs, inconsistency, or imprecision of effect estimates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Continuous support during labour may improve outcomes for women and infants, including increased spontaneous vaginal birth, shorter duration of labour, and decreased caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth, use of any analgesia, use of regional analgesia, low five-minute Apgar score and negative feelings about childbirth experiences. We found no evidence of harms of continuous labour support. Subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution, and considered as exploratory and hypothesis-generating, but evidence suggests continuous support with certain provider characteristics, in settings where epidural analgesia was not routinely available, in settings where women were not permitted to have companions of their choosing in labour, and in middle-income country settings, may have a favourable impact on outcomes such as caesarean birth. Future research on continuous support during labour could focus on longer-term outcomes (breastfeeding, mother-infant interactions, postpartum depression, self-esteem, difficulty mothering) and include more woman-centred outcomes in low-income settings.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Doulas; Female; Humans; Labor, Obstetric; Personal Autonomy; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Professional-Patient Relations
PubMed: 28681500
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub6