-
Human Reproduction Update Mar 2019Early reproductive failure is the most common complication of pregnancy with only 30% of conceptions reaching live birth. Establishing a successful pregnancy depends... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Early reproductive failure is the most common complication of pregnancy with only 30% of conceptions reaching live birth. Establishing a successful pregnancy depends upon implantation, a complex process involving interactions between the endometrium and the blastocyst. It is estimated that embryos account for one-third of implantation failures, while suboptimal endometrial receptivity and altered embryo-endometrial dialogue are responsible for the remaining two-thirds. Endometrial receptivity has been the focus of extensive research for over 80 years, leading to an indepth understanding of the processes associated with embryo-endometrial cross-talk and implantation. However, little progress has been achieved to translate this understanding into clinically meaningful prognostic tests and treatments for suboptimal endometrial receptivity.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
The objective of this systematic review was to examine the evidence from observational studies supporting the use of endometrial receptivity markers as prognostic factors for pregnancy outcome in women wishing to conceive, in order to aid clinicians in choosing the most useful marker in clinical practice and for informing further research.
SEARCH METHODS
The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017077891). MEDLINE and Embase were searched for observational studies published from inception until 26 February 2018. We included studies that measured potential markers of endometrial receptivity prior to pregnancy attempts and reported the subsequent pregnancy outcomes. We performed association and accuracy analyses using clinical pregnancy as an outcome to reflect the presence of receptive endometrium. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies was employed to assess the quality of the included studies.
OUTCOMES
We included 163 studies (88 834 women) of moderate overall quality in the narrative synthesis, out of which 96 were included in the meta-analyses. Studies reported on various endometrial receptivity markers evaluated by ultrasound, endometrial biopsy, endometrial fluid aspirate and hysteroscopy in the context of natural conception, IUI and IVF. Associations were identified between clinical pregnancy and various endometrial receptivity markers (endometrial thickness, endometrial pattern, Doppler indices, endometrial wave-like activity and various molecules); however, their poor ability to predict clinical pregnancy prevents them from being used in clinical practice. Results from several modern molecular tests are promising and further data are awaited.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
The post-test probabilities from our analyses may be used in clinical practice to manage couples' expectations during fertility treatments (IUI and IVF). Conventionally, endometrial receptivity is seen as a dichotomous outcome (present or absent), but we propose that various levels of endometrial receptivity exist within the window of implantation. For instance, different transcriptomic signatures could represent varying levels of endometrial receptivity, which can be linked to different pregnancy outcomes. Many studies reported the means of a particular biomarker in those who achieved a pregnancy compared with those who did not. However, extreme values of a biomarker (as opposite to the means) may have significant prognostic and diagnostic implications that are not captured in the means. Therefore, we suggest reporting the outcomes by categories of biomarker levels rather than reporting means of biomarker levels within clinical outcome groups.
Topics: Biomarkers; Embryo Implantation; Endometrium; Female; Fertility; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Live Birth; Observational Studies as Topic; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Multiple
PubMed: 30624659
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmy044 -
PLoS Medicine Aug 2019Women who undergo bariatric surgery prior to pregnancy are less likely to experience comorbidities associated with obesity such as gestational diabetes and hypertension.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Women who undergo bariatric surgery prior to pregnancy are less likely to experience comorbidities associated with obesity such as gestational diabetes and hypertension. However, bariatric surgery, particularly malabsorptive procedures, can make patients susceptible to deficiencies in nutrients that are essential for healthy fetal development. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the association between pregnancy after bariatric surgery and adverse perinatal outcomes.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to June 2019, supplemented by hand-searching reference lists, citations, and journals. Observational studies comparing perinatal outcomes post-bariatric surgery to pregnancies without prior bariatric surgery were included. Outcomes of interest were perinatal mortality, congenital anomalies, preterm birth, postterm birth, small and large for gestational age (SGA/LGA), and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Where data were available, results were subgrouped by type of bariatric surgery. We included 33 studies with 14,880 pregnancies post-bariatric surgery and 3,979,978 controls. Odds ratios (ORs) were increased after bariatric surgery (all types combined) for perinatal mortality (1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.85, p = 0.031), congenital anomalies (1.29, 95% CI 1.04-1.59, p = 0.019), preterm birth (1.57, 95% CI 1.38-1.79, p < 0.001), and NICU admission (1.41, 95% CI 1.25-1.59, p < 0.001). Postterm birth decreased after bariatric surgery (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.60, p < 0.001). ORs for SGA increased (2.72, 95% CI 2.32-3.20, p < 0.001) and LGA decreased (0.24, 95% CI 0.14-0.41, p < 0.001) after gastric bypass but not after gastric banding. Babies born after bariatric surgery (all types combined) weighed over 200 g less than those born to mothers without prior bariatric surgery (weighted mean difference -242.42 g, 95% CI -307.43 to -177.40 g, p < 0.001). There was low heterogeneity for all outcomes (I2 < 40%) except LGA. Limitations of our study are that as a meta-analysis of existing studies, the results are limited by the quality of the included studies and available data, unmeasured confounders, and the small number of studies for some outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
In our systematic review of observational studies, we found that bariatric surgery, especially gastric bypass, prior to pregnancy was associated with increased risk of some adverse perinatal outcomes. This suggests that women who have undergone bariatric surgery may benefit from specific preconception and pregnancy nutritional support and increased monitoring of fetal growth and development. Future studies should explore whether restrictive surgery results in better perinatal outcomes, compared to malabsorptive surgery, without compromising maternal outcomes. If so, these may be the preferred surgery for women of reproductive age.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017051537.
Topics: Bariatric Surgery; Birth Weight; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Perinatal Mortality; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 31386658
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002866 -
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes of Pregnancy in CKD and CKD Outcomes in Pregnancy.Clinical Journal of the American... Nov 2015We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of published cohort studies and case-control studies to estimate (1) the risk of pregnancy complications among... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of published cohort studies and case-control studies to estimate (1) the risk of pregnancy complications among patients with CKD versus those without CKD and (2) the risk of CKD progression among pregnant patients versus nonpregnant controls with CKD.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS
We searched electronic databases for studies published between 1946 and 2014, and we reviewed articles using validity criteria. Random-effects analytical methods were used.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies (14 with data for adverse pregnancy outcomes and 9 for renal outcomes) with 506,340 pregnancies were included. Pregnancy with CKD had greater odds of preeclampsia (odds ratio [OR], 10.36; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 6.28 to 17.09), premature delivery (OR, 5.72; 95% CI, 3.26 to 10.03), small for gestational age/low birth weight (OR, 4.85; 95% CI, 3.03 to 7.76), cesarean section (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.01 to 3.54), and failure of pregnancy (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.03 to 3.13). Subgroup analysis showed that odds of preeclampsia (P<0.01) and premature delivery (P<0.01) were higher in women with nondiabetic nephropathy compared with diabetic nephropathy, and the odds of preeclampsia (P=0.01) and premature delivery (P<0.01) were higher in women with macroproteinuria compared with microproteinuria. The median for follow-up time for renal events was 5 years (interquartile range, 5-14.7 years). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of renal events between CKD pregnant women and those without pregnancy (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.35). Subgroup analysis showed that publication year, sample size, follow-up years, type of primary disease, CKD classification, level of serum creatinine at baseline, proteinuria, and level of systolic BP did not modify the renal outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
The risks of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnancy are higher for women with CKD versus pregnant women without CKD. However, pregnancy was not a risk factor for progression of renal disease in women with CKD before pregnancy.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Disease Progression; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 26487769
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.09250914 -
Clinical Journal of the American... Nov 2010Studies of the impact of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and its pregnancy complications have yielded conflicting results. Major limitations of these studies relate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Studies of the impact of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and its pregnancy complications have yielded conflicting results. Major limitations of these studies relate to their small numbers of patients and retrospective designs. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review of pregnancy outcomes in women with SLE and a meta-analysis of the association of lupus nephritis with adverse pregnancy outcomes.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS
We searched electronic databases from 1980 to 2009 and reviewed papers with validity criteria. Random-effects analytical methods were used to evaluate pregnancy complications rates.
RESULTS
Thirty-seven studies with 1842 patients and 2751 pregnancies were included. Maternal complications included lupus flare (25.6%), hypertension (16.3%), nephritis (16.1%), pre-eclampsia (7.6%), and eclampsia (0.8%). The induced abortion rate was 5.9%, and when excluded, fetal complications included spontaneous abortion (16.0%), stillbirth (3.6%), neonatal deaths (2.5%), and intrauterine growth retardation (12.7%). The unsuccessful pregnancy rate was 23.4%, and the premature birth rate was 39.4%. Meta-regression analysis showed statistically significant positive associations between premature birth rate and active nephritis and increased hypertension rates in subjects with active nephritis or a history of nephritis. History of nephritis was also associated with pre-eclampsia. Anti-phospholipid antibodies were associated with hypertension, premature birth, and an increased rate of induced abortion.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with SLE, both lupus nephritis and anti-phospholipid antibodies increase the risks for maternal hypertension and premature births. The presented evidence further supports timing of pregnancy relative to SLE activity and multispecialty care of these patients.
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Spontaneous; Antibodies, Antiphospholipid; Female; Fetal Death; Fetal Growth Retardation; Humans; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Live Birth; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Lupus Nephritis; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Stillbirth
PubMed: 20688887
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.00240110 -
Reproductive Health Sep 2014There is increasingly a double burden of under-nutrition and obesity in women of reproductive age. Preconception underweight or overweight, short stature and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
There is increasingly a double burden of under-nutrition and obesity in women of reproductive age. Preconception underweight or overweight, short stature and micronutrient deficiencies all contribute to excess maternal and fetal complications during pregnancy.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence was conducted to ascertain the possible impact of preconception care for adolescents, women and couples of reproductive age on maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) outcomes. A comprehensive strategy was used to search electronic reference libraries, and both observational and clinical controlled trials were included. Cross-referencing and a separate search strategy for each preconception risk and intervention ensured wider study capture.
RESULTS
Maternal pre-pregnancy weight is a significant factor in the preconception period with underweight contributing to a 32% higher risk of preterm birth, and obesity more than doubling the risk for preeclampsia, gestational diabetes. Overweight women are more likely to undergo a Cesarean delivery, and their newborns have higher chances of being born with a neural tube or congenital heart defect. Among nutrition-specific interventions, preconception folic acid supplementation has the strongest evidence of effect, preventing 69% of recurrent neural tube defects. Multiple micronutrient supplementation shows promise to reduce the rates of congenital anomalies and risk of preeclampsia. Although over 40% of women worldwide are anemic in the preconception period, only one study has shown a risk for low birth weight.
CONCLUSION
All women, but especially those who become pregnant in adolescence or have closely-spaced pregnancies (inter-pregnancy interval less than six months), require nutritional assessment and appropriate intervention in the preconception period with an emphasis on optimizing maternal body mass index and micronutrient reserves. Increasing coverage of nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive strategies (such as food fortification; integration of nutrition initiatives with other maternal and child health interventions; and community based platforms) is necessary among adolescent girls and women of reproductive age. The effectiveness of interventions will need to be simultaneously monitored, and form the basis for the development of improved delivery strategies and new nutritional interventions.
Topics: Body Weight; Congenital Abnormalities; Dietary Supplements; Female; Folic Acid; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Preconception Care; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Prenatal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
PubMed: 25415364
DOI: 10.1186/1742-4755-11-S3-S3 -
Nutrients Jan 2023Diabetes disrupts one in six pregnancies, bestowing immediate and long-term health risks to mother and child. Diet and exercise are commonly prescribed to control... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Nutritional and Exercise-Focused Lifestyle Interventions and Glycemic Control in Women with Diabetes in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Diabetes disrupts one in six pregnancies, bestowing immediate and long-term health risks to mother and child. Diet and exercise are commonly prescribed to control dysglycemia, but their effectiveness across sub-populations and types of diabetes (type-1; type-2; or gestational diabetes mellitus, GDM) is uncertain. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of diet and/or exercise on glycemia in pregnant women with diabetes was conducted. Random effects models were used to evaluate effect sizes across studies and anticipated confounders (e.g., age, ethnicity, BMI). Of the 4845 records retrieved, 26 studies (8 nutritional supplements, 12 dietary, and 6 exercise interventions) were included. All studies were conducted in patients with GDM. Overall, supplement- and exercise-based interventions reduced fasting glucose (−0.30 mmol/L; 95% CI = −0.55, −0.06; p = 0.02; and 0.10 mmol/L; 95% CI = −0.20, −0.01; p = 0.04); and supplement- and diet-based interventions reduced HOMA-IR (−0.40; 95% CI = −0.58, −0.22; p < 0.001; and −1.15; 95% CI = −2.12, −0.17; p = 0.02). Subgroup analysis by confounders only confirmed marginal changed effect sizes. Our results suggest a favorable role of certain nutritional supplements, diet, and exercise practices on glycemia in women with GDM and underline a lack of evidence in ~20% of other diabetes-related pregnancies (i.e., women with pre-existing diabetes).
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Diabetes, Gestational; Diet; Glycemic Control; Life Style; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36678193
DOI: 10.3390/nu15020323 -
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... Apr 2021Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime, and 15% to 20% of pregnancies ending in a miscarriage. Progesterone has an important role in maintaining a pregnancy, and supplementation with different progestogens in early pregnancy has been attempted to rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding (threatened miscarriage), and to prevent miscarriages in asymptomatic women who have a history of three or more previous miscarriages (recurrent miscarriage).
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage, and provide rankings of the available treatments according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 15 December 2020: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE(R), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of progestogen treatment for the prevention of miscarriage. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded quasi- and non-randomised trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, to determine the relative effects of all available treatments, but due to the limited number of included studies only direct or indirect comparisons were possible. We estimated the relative effects for the primary outcome of live birth and the secondary outcomes including miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, congenital abnormalities, and adverse drug events. Relative effects for all outcomes are reported separately by the type of miscarriage (threatened and recurrent miscarriage). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Our meta-analysis included seven randomised trials involving 5,682 women, and all provided data for meta-analysis. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Across seven trials (14 treatment arms), the following treatments were used: three arms (21%) used vaginal micronized progesterone; three arms (21%) used dydrogesterone; one arm (7%) used oral micronized progesterone; one arm (7%) used 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone, and six arms (43%) used placebo. Women with threatened miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the pairwise meta-analysis, vaginal micronized progesterone (two trials, 4090 women, risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.07, high-certainty evidence), and dydrogesterone (one trial, 406 women, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07, moderate-certainty evidence) probably make little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with threatened miscarriage. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with threatened miscarriage. The pre-specified subgroup analysis by number of previous miscarriages is only possible for vaginal micronized progesterone in women with threatened miscarriage. In women with no previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, there is probably little or no improvement in the live birth rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.04, high-certainty evidence) when treated with vaginal micronized progesterone compared to placebo. However, for women with one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, vaginal micronized progesterone increases the live birth rate compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence). Women with recurrent miscarriage Based on the results from one trial (826 women) vaginal micronized progesterone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence) probably makes little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage. The evidence for dydrogesterone compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage is of very low-certainty evidence, therefore the effects remain unclear. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with recurrent miscarriage. Additional outcomes All progestogen treatments have a wide range of effects on the other pre-specified outcomes (miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy) in comparison to placebo for both threatened and recurrent miscarriage. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence with a wide range of effects suggests that there is probably no difference in congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events with vaginal micronized progesterone for threatened (congenital abnormalities RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.46, moderate-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.07 95% CI 0.81 to 1.39, moderate-certainty evidence) or recurrent miscarriage (congenital abnormalities 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.85, low-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.29, moderate-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. There are limited data and very low-certainty evidence on congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events for the other progestogens.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The overall available evidence suggests that progestogens probably make little or no difference to live birth rate for women with threatened or recurrent miscarriage. However, vaginal micronized progesterone may increase the live birth rate for women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, with likely no difference in adverse events. There is still uncertainty over the effectiveness and safety of alternative progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Abortion, Spontaneous; Bias; Birth Rate; Dydrogesterone; Female; Humans; Hydroxyprogesterones; Live Birth; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Pregnancy; Progesterone; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stillbirth
PubMed: 33872382
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013792.pub2 -
BMJ Open Jul 2022Water immersion during labour using a birth pool to achieve relaxation and pain relief during the first and possibly part of the second stage of labour is an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Water immersion during labour using a birth pool to achieve relaxation and pain relief during the first and possibly part of the second stage of labour is an increasingly popular care option in several countries. It is used particularly by healthy women who experience a straightforward pregnancy, labour spontaneously at term gestation and plan to give birth in a midwifery led care setting. More women are also choosing to give birth in water. There is debate about the safety of intrapartum water immersion, particularly waterbirth. We synthesised the evidence that compared the effect of water immersion during labour or waterbirth on intrapartum interventions and outcomes to standard care with no water immersion. A secondary objective was to synthesise data relating to clinical care practices and birth settings that women experience who immerse in water and women who do not.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
A search was conducted using CINAHL, Medline, Embase, BioMed Central and PsycINFO during March 2020 and was replicated in May 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Primary quantitative studies published in 2000 or later, examining maternal or neonatal interventions and outcomes using the birthing pool for labour and/or birth.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Full-text screening was undertaken independently against inclusion/exclusion criteria in two pairs. Risk of bias assessment included review of seven domains based on the Robbins-I Risk of Bias Tool. All outcomes were summarised using an OR and 95% CI. All calculations were conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V.3, using the inverse variance method. Results of individual studies were converted to log OR and SE for synthesis. Fixed effects models were used when I was less than 50%, otherwise random effects models were used. The fail-safe N estimates were calculated to determine the number of studies necessary to change the estimates. Begg's test and Egger's regression risk assessed risk of bias across studies. Trim-and-fill analysis was used to estimate the magnitude of effect of the bias. Meta-regression was completed when at least 10 studies provided data for an outcome.
RESULTS
We included 36 studies in the review, (N=157 546 participants). Thirty-one studies were conducted in an obstetric unit setting (n=70 393), four studies were conducted in midwife led settings (n=61 385) and one study was a mixed setting (OU and homebirth) (n=25 768). Midwife led settings included planned home and freestanding midwifery unit (k=1), alongside midwifery units (k=1), planned homebirth (k=1), a freestanding midwifery unit and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1) and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1). For water immersion, 25 studies involved women who planned to have/had a waterbirth (n=151 742), seven involved water immersion for labour only (1901), three studies reported on water immersion during labour and waterbirth (n=3688) and one study was unclear about the timing of water immersion (n=215).Water immersion significantly reduced use of epidural (k=7, n=10 993; OR 0.17 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56), injected opioids (k=8, n=27 391; OR 0.22 95% CI 0.13 to 0.38), episiotomy (k=15, n=36 558; OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.27), maternal pain (k=8, n=1200; OR 0.24 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51) and postpartum haemorrhage (k=15, n=63 891; OR 0.69 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). There was an increase in maternal satisfaction (k=6, n=4144; OR 1.95 95% CI 1.28 to 2.96) and odds of an intact perineum (k=17, n=59 070; OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.79) with water immersion. Waterbirth was associated with increased odds of cord avulsion (OR 1.94 95% CI 1.30 to 2.88), although the absolute risk remained low (4.3 per 1000 vs 1.3 per 1000). There were no differences in any other identified neonatal outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
This review endorses previous reviews showing clear benefits resulting from intrapartum water immersion for healthy women and their newborns. While most included studies were conducted in obstetric units, to enable the identification of best practice regarding water immersion, future birthing pool research should integrate factors that are known to influence intrapartum interventions and outcomes. These include maternal parity, the care model, care practices and birth setting.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019147001.
Topics: Female; Humans; Immersion; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Obstetric; Natural Childbirth; Pain; Parturition; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35790327
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056517 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2012Caesarean section rates are progressively rising in many parts of the world. One suggested reason is increasing requests by women for caesarean section in the absence of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Caesarean section rates are progressively rising in many parts of the world. One suggested reason is increasing requests by women for caesarean section in the absence of clear medical indications, such as placenta praevia, HIV infection, contracted pelvis and, arguably, breech presentation or previous caesarean section. The reported benefits of planned caesarean section include greater safety for the baby, less pelvic floor trauma for the mother, avoidance of labour pain and convenience. The potential disadvantages, from observational studies, include increased risk of major morbidity or mortality for the mother, adverse psychological sequelae, and problems in subsequent pregnancies, including uterine scar rupture and a greater risk of stillbirth and neonatal morbidity. The differences in neonatal physiology following vaginal and caesarean births are thought to have implications for the infant, with caesarean section potentially increasing the risk of compromised health in both the short and the long term. An unbiased assessment of advantages and disadvantages would assist discussion of what has become a contentious issue in modern obstetrics.
OBJECTIVES
To assess, from randomised trials, the effects on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, and on maternal psychological morbidity, of planned caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth in women with no clear clinical indication for caesarean section.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2012) and reference lists of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All comparisons of intention to perform caesarean section and intention for women to give birth vaginally; random allocation to treatment and control groups; adequate allocation concealment; women at term with single fetuses with cephalic presentations and no clear medical indication for caesarean section.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
There were no included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials, upon which to base any practice recommendations regarding planned caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. In the absence of trial data, there is an urgent need for a systematic review of observational studies and a synthesis of qualitative data to better assess the short- and long-term effects of caesarean section and vaginal birth.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Term Birth
PubMed: 22419296
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004660.pub3