Calcium channel blockers for potential impaired fetal growth

Support during pregnancy for women at increased risk of low birthweight babies

BACKGROUND

Studies consistently show a relationship between social disadvantage and low birthweight. Many countries have programmes offering special assistance to women thought to be at risk for giving birth to a low birthweight infant. These programmes, collectively referred to in this review as additional social support, may include emotional support, which gives a person a feeling of being loved and cared for, tangible/instrumental support, in the form of direct assistance/home visits, and informational support, through the provision of advice, guidance and counselling. The programmes may be delivered by multidisciplinary teams of health professionals, specially trained lay workers, or a combination of lay and professional workers. This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and updated in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess the effects of programmes offering additional social support (emotional, instrumental/tangible and informational) compared with routine care, for pregnant women believed to be at high risk for giving birth to babies that are either preterm (less than 37 weeks' gestation) or weigh less than 2500 g, or both, at birth. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the effectiveness of support was mediated by timing of onset (early versus later in pregnancy) or type of provider (healthcare professional or lay person).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 5 February 2018, and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of additional social support during at-risk pregnancy by either a professional (social worker, midwife, or nurse) or specially trained lay person, compared to routine care. We defined additional social support as some form of emotional support (e.g. caring, empathy, trust), tangible/instrumental support (e.g. transportation to clinic appointments, home visits complemented with phone calls, help with household responsibilities) or informational support (advice and counselling about nutrition, rest, stress management, use of alcohol/recreational drugs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes a total of 25 studies, with outcome data for 11,246 mothers and babies enrolled in 21 studies. We assessed the overall risk of bias of included studies to be low or unclear, mainly because of limited reporting or uncertainty in how randomisation was generated or concealed (which led us to downgrade the quality of most outcomes to moderate), and the impracticability of blinding participants.When compared with routine care, programmes offering additional social support for at-risk pregnant women may slightly reduce the number of babies born with a birthweight less than 2500 g from 127 per 1000 to 120 per 1000 (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.04; 16 studies, n = 11,770; moderate-quality evidence), and the number of babies born with a gestational age less than 37 weeks at birth from 128 per 1000 to 117 per 1000 (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01, 14 studies, n = 12,282; moderate-quality evidence), though the confidence intervals for the pooled effect for both of these outcomes just crossed the line of no effect, suggesting any effect is not large. There may be little or no difference between interventions for stillbirth/neonatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.41; 15 studies, n = 12,091; low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomes of moderate quality suggested that there is probably a reduction in caesarean section (from 215 per 1000 to 194 per 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; 15 studies, n = 9550), a reduction in the number of antenatal hospital admissions per participant (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.91; 4 studies; n = 787), and a reduction in the mean number of hospitalisation episodes (mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.04; 1 study, n = 1525) in the social support group, compared to the controls.Postnatal depression and women's satisfaction were reported in different ways in the studies that considered these outcomes and so we could not include data in a meta-analysis. In one study postnatal depression appeared to be slightly lower in the support group in women who screened positively on the Edinbugh Postnatal Depression Scale at eight to 12 weeks postnatally (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.01; 1 study, n = 1008; moderate-quality evidence). In another study, again postnatal depression appeared to be slightly lower in the support group and this was a self-report measure assessed at six weeks postnatally (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; 1 study, n = 458; low-quality evidence). A higher proportion of women in one study reported that their prenatal care was very helpful in the supported group (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.30; 1 study, n = 223; moderate-quality evidence), although in another study results were similar. Another study assessed satisfaction with prenatal care as being "not good" in 51 of 945 in the additional support group, compared with 45 of 942 in the usual care group.No studies considered long-term morbidity for the infant. No single outcome was reported in all studies. Subgroup analysis demonstrated consistency of effect when the support was provided by a healthcare professional or a trained lay worker.The descriptions of the additional social support were generally consistent across all studies and included emotional support, tangible support such as home visits, and informational support.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women need the support of caring family members, friends, and health professionals. While programmes that offer additional social support during pregnancy are unlikely to have a large impact on the proportion of low birthweight babies or birth before 37 weeks' gestation and no impact on stillbirth or neonatal death, they may be helpful in reducing the likelihood of caesarean birth and antenatal hospital admission.

Antenatal and intrapartum interventions for preventing cerebral palsy: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Cerebral palsy is an umbrella term encompassing disorders of movement and posture, attributed to non-progressive disturbances occurring in the developing fetal or infant brain. As there are diverse risk factors and causes, no one strategy will prevent all cerebral palsy. Therefore, there is a need to systematically consider all potentially relevant interventions for their contribution to prevention.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane reviews regarding the effects of antenatal and intrapartum interventions for preventing cerebral palsy.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 7 August 2016, for reviews of antenatal or intrapartum interventions reporting on cerebral palsy. Two authors assessed reviews for inclusion, extracted data, assessed review quality, using AMSTAR and ROBIS, and quality of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. We organised reviews by topic, and summarised findings in text and tables. We categorised interventions as effective (high-quality evidence of effectiveness); possibly effective (moderate-quality evidence of effectiveness); ineffective (high-quality evidence of harm or of lack of effectiveness); probably ineffective (moderate-quality evidence of harm or of lack of effectiveness); and no conclusions possible (low- to very low-quality evidence).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 Cochrane reviews. A further 62 reviews pre-specified the outcome cerebral palsy in their methods, but none of the included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported this outcome. The included reviews were high quality and at low risk of bias. They included 279 RCTs; data for cerebral palsy were available from 27 (10%) RCTs, involving 32,490 children. They considered interventions for: treating mild to moderate hypertension (two) and pre-eclampsia (two); diagnosing and preventing fetal compromise in labour (one); preventing preterm birth (four); preterm fetal maturation or neuroprotection (five); and managing preterm fetal compromise (one). Quality of evidence ranged from very low to high. Effective interventions: high-quality evidence of effectiveness There was a reduction in cerebral palsy in children born to women at risk of preterm birth who received magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection of the fetus compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.87; five RCTs; 6145 children). Probably ineffective interventions: moderate-quality evidence of harm There was an increase in cerebral palsy in children born to mothers in preterm labour with intact membranes who received any prophylactic antibiotics versus no antibiotics (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.34; one RCT; 3173 children). There was an increase in cerebral palsy in children, who as preterm babies with suspected fetal compromise, were born immediately compared with those for whom birth was deferred (RR 5.88, 95% CI 1.33 to 26.02; one RCT; 507 children). Probably ineffective interventions: moderate-quality evidence of lack of effectiveness There was no clear difference in the presence of cerebral palsy in children born to women at risk of preterm birth who received repeat doses of corticosteroids compared with a single course (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.50; four RCTs; 3800 children). No conclusions possible: low- to very low-quality evidence Low-quality evidence found there was a possible reduction in cerebral palsy for children born to women at risk of preterm birth who received antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation compared with placebo (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.03; five RCTs; 904 children). There was no clear difference in the presence of cerebral palsy with interventionist care for severe pre-eclampsia versus expectant care (RR 6.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 48.14; one RCT; 262 children); magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia versus placebo (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.26; one RCT; 2895 children); continuous cardiotocography for fetal assessment during labour versus intermittent auscultation (average RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.63; two RCTs; 13,252 children); prenatal progesterone for prevention of preterm birth versus placebo (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.48; one RCT; 274 children); and betamimetics for inhibiting preterm labour versus placebo (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; one RCT; 246 children).Very low-quality found no clear difference for the presence of cerebral palsy with any antihypertensive drug (oral beta-blockers) for treatment of mild to moderate hypertension versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01; one RCT; 110 children); magnesium sulphate for prevention of preterm birth versus other tocolytic agents (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.51; one RCT; 106 children); and vitamin K and phenobarbital prior to preterm birth for prevention of neonatal periventricular haemorrhage versus placebo (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.76; one RCT; 299 children).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview summarises evidence from Cochrane reviews on the effects of antenatal and intrapartum interventions on cerebral palsy, and can be used by researchers, funding bodies, policy makers, clinicians and consumers to aid decision-making and evidence translation. We recommend that readers consult the included Cochrane reviews to formally assess other benefits or harms of included interventions, including impacts on risk factors for cerebral palsy (such as the reduction in intraventricular haemorrhage for preterm babies following exposure to antenatal corticosteroids).Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for fetal neuroprotection can prevent cerebral palsy. Prophylactic antibiotics for women in preterm labour with intact membranes, and immediate rather than deferred birth of preterm babies with suspected fetal compromise, may increase the risk of cerebral palsy. Repeat doses compared with a single course of antenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of preterm birth do not clearly impact the risk of cerebral palsy.Cerebral palsy is rarely diagnosed at birth, has diverse risk factors and causes, and is diagnosed in approximately one in 500 children. To date, only a small proportion of Cochrane reviews assessing antenatal and intrapartum interventions have been able to report on this outcome. There is an urgent need for long-term follow-up of RCTs of interventions addressing risk factors for cerebral palsy, and consideration of the use of relatively new interim assessments (including the General Movements Assessment). Such RCTs must be rigorous in their design, and aim for consistency in cerebral palsy outcome measurement and reporting to facilitate pooling of data, to focus research efforts on prevention.

Immediate versus deferred delivery of the preterm baby with suspected fetal compromise for improving outcomes

BACKGROUND

Immediate delivery of the preterm fetus with suspected compromise may decrease the risk of damage due to intrauterine hypoxia. However, it may also increase the risks of prematurity.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immediate versus deferred delivery of preterm babies with suspected fetal compromise on neonatal, maternal and long-term outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing a policy of immediate delivery with deferred delivery or expectant management in preterm fetuses with suspected in utero compromise. Quasi-randomised trials and trials employing a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one trial of 548 women (588 babies) in the review. Women with pregnancies between 24 and 36 weeks' gestation took part. The study took place in 13 European countries, between 1993 and 2001. The difference in the median randomisation to delivery interval between immediate delivery and deferred delivery was four days (median: 0.9 (inter-quartile range (IQR) 0.4 to 1.3) days for immediate delivery, median: 4.9 (IQR 2.0 to 10.8) days in the delay group).There was no clear difference in the primary outcomes of extended perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 2.04, one trial, 587 babies, moderate-quality evidence) or the composite outcome of death or disability at or after two years of age (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75, one trial, 573 babies, moderate-quality evidence) with immediate delivery compared to deferred delivery. The results for these outcomes are consistent with both appreciable benefit and harm. More babies in the immediate delivery group were ventilated for more than 24 hours (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.97, one trial, 576 babies). There were no differences between the immediate delivery and deferred delivery groups in any other infant mortality outcome (stillbirth, neonatal mortality, postneonatal mortality > 28 days to discharge), individual neonatal morbidity or markers of neonatal morbidity (cord pH less than 7.00, Apgar less than seven at five minutes, convulsions, interventricular haemorrhage or germinal matrix haemorrhage, necrotising enterocolitis and periventricular leucomalacia or ventriculomegaly).Some important outcomes were not reported, in particular infant admission to neonatal intensive care or special care facility, and respiratory distress syndrome. We were not able to calculate composite rates of serious neonatal morbidity, even though individual morbidities were reported, due to the risk of double counting infants with more than one morbidity.More children in the immediate delivery group had cerebral palsy at or after two years of age (RR 5.88, 95% CI 1.33 to 26.02, one trial, 507 children). There were, however, no differences in neurodevelopment impairment at or after two years (RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.41, one trial, 507 children), death at or after two years of age (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63, one trial, 573 children), or death or disability in childhood (six to 13 years of age) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.40, one trial, 302 children). More women in the immediate delivery group had caesarean delivery than in the deferred delivery group (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.24, one trial, 547 women, high-quality evidence). Data were not available on any other maternal outcomes.There were several methodological weaknesses in the included study, and the level of evidence for the primary outcomes was graded high for caesarean section and moderate for extended perinatal mortality and death or disability at or after two years. The evidence was downgraded because the CIs for these outcomes were wide, and were consistent with both appreciable benefit and harm. Bias may have been introduced by several factors: blinding was not possible due to the nature of the intervention, data for childhood follow-up were incomplete due to attrition, and no adjustment was made in the analysis for the non-independence of babies from multiple pregnancies (39 out of 548 pregnancies). This study only included cases of suspected fetal compromise where there was uncertainty whether immediate delivery was indicated, thus results must be interpreted with caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of immediate delivery compared with deferred delivery in cases of suspected fetal compromise at preterm gestations to make firm recommendations. There is a lack of trials addressing this question, and limitations of the one included trial means that caution must be used in interpreting and generalising the findings. More research is needed to guide clinical practice.Although the included trial is relatively large, it has insufficient power to detect differences in neonatal mortality. It did not report any maternal outcomes other than mode of delivery, or evaluate maternal satisfaction or economic outcomes. The applicability of the findings is limited by several factors: Women with a wide range of obstetric complications and gestational ages were included, and subgroup analysis is currently limited. Advances in Doppler assessment techniques may diagnose severe compromise more accurately and help make decisions about the timing of delivery. The potential benefits of deferring delivery for longer or shorter periods cannot be presumed.Where there is uncertainty whether or not to deliver a preterm fetus with suspected fetal compromise, there seems to be no benefit to immediate delivery. Deferring delivery until test results worsen or increasing gestation favours delivery may improve the outcomes for mother and baby.There is a need for high-quality randomised controlled trials comparing immediate and deferred delivery where there is suspected fetal compromise at preterm gestations to guide clinical practice. Future trials should report all important outcomes, and should be adequately powered to detect differences in maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality.

Treatment of poor placentation and the prevention of associated adverse outcomes--what does the future hold?

Poor placentation, which manifests as pre-eclampsia and fetal growth restriction, is a major pregnancy complication. The underlying cause is a deficiency in normal trophoblast invasion of the spiral arteries, associated with placental inflammation, oxidative stress, and an antiangiogenic state. Peripartum therapies, such as prenatal maternal corticosteroids and magnesium sulphate, can prevent some of the adverse neonatal outcomes, but there is currently no treatment for poor placentation itself. Instead, management relies on identifying the consequences of poor placentation in the mother and fetus, with iatrogenic preterm delivery to minimise mortality and morbidity. Several promising therapies are currently under development to treat poor placentation, to improve fetal growth, and to prevent adverse neonatal outcomes. Interventions such as maternal nitric oxide donors, sildenafil citrate, vascular endothelial growth factor gene therapy, hydrogen sulphide donors, and statins address the underlying pathology, while maternal melatonin administration may provide fetal neuroprotection. In the future, these may provide a range of synergistic therapies for pre-eclampsia and fetal growth restriction, depending on the severity and gestation of onset.

Antenatal interventions to reduce preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

Several factors are associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (PTB); therefore, various interventions might have the potential to influence it. Due to the large number of interventions that address PTB, the objective of this overview is to summarise evidence from Cochrane reviews regarding the effects and safety of these different interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Included reviews should be based on randomised controlled trials comparing antenatal non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions that directly or indirectly address PTB with placebo/no treatment or routine care in pregnant women at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation without signs of threatened preterm labour. We considered PTB at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

We included 56 Cochrane systematic reviews. Three interventions increased PTB risk significantly. Twelve interventions led to a statistically significant lower incidence of PTBs. However, this reduction was mostly observed in defined at-risk subgroups of pregnant women. The remaining antenatal interventions failed to prove a significant effect on PTB < 37 weeks, but some of them at least showed a positive effect in secondary outcomes (e.g., reduction in early PTBs). As an unintended result of this review, we identified 28 additional Cochrane reviews which intended to report on PTB < 37 weeks, but were not able to find any RCTs reporting appropriate data.

CONCLUSIONS

The possible effects of a diverse range of interventions on PTB have been evaluated in Cochrane systematic reviews. Few interventions have been demonstrated to be effective and a small number have been found to be harmful. For around half of the interventions evaluated, the Cochrane review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to provide sound recommendations for clinical practice. No RCT evidence is available for a number of potentially relevant interventions.

Immediate versus deferred delivery of the preterm baby with suspected fetal compromise for improving outcomes

BACKGROUND

Immediate delivery of the preterm fetus with suspected compromise may decrease the risk of damage due to intrauterine hypoxia. However, it may also increase the risks of prematurity.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immediate versus deferred delivery of preterm babies with suspected fetal compromise on neonatal, maternal and long-term outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 February 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing a policy of immediate delivery with deferred delivery or expectant management in preterm fetuses with suspected in utero compromise. Quasi-randomised trials and trials employing a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently evaluated trials for inclusion into the review. Two review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one trial of 548 women (588 babies) in the review. There was no difference in the primary outcomes of extended perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 2.04) or the composite outcome of death or disability at or after two years (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75) with immediate delivery compared to deferred delivery. More babies in the immediate delivery group were ventilated for more than 24 hours (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.97). There were no differences between the immediate delivery and deferred delivery groups in any other individual neonatal morbidity or markers of neonatal morbidity (cord pH less than 7.00, Apgar less than seven at five minutes, convulsions, interventricular haemorrhage or germinal matrix haemorrhage, necrotising enterocolitis and periventricular leucomalacia or ventriculomegaly).More children in the immediate delivery group had cerebral palsy at or after two years of age (RR 5.88, 95% CI 1.33 to 26.02). There were, however, no differences in neurodevelopment impairment at or after two years (RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.41) or death or disability in childhood (six to 13 years of age) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.40). More women in the immediate delivery group had caesarean delivery than in the deferred delivery group (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.24). Data were not available on any other maternal outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of immediate delivery compared with deferred delivery in cases of suspected fetal compromise at preterm gestations to make firm recommendations to guide clinical practice. Where there is uncertainty whether or not to deliver a preterm fetus with suspected fetal compromise, there seems to be no benefit to immediate delivery. Deferring delivery until test results worsen or increasing gestation favours delivery may improve the outcomes for mother and baby. More research is needed to guide clinical practice.

Support during pregnancy for women at increased risk of low birthweight babies

BACKGROUND

Studies consistently show a relationship between social disadvantage and low birthweight. Many countries have programs offering special assistance to women thought to be at risk for giving birth to a low birthweight infant. These programs may include advice and counseling (about nutrition, rest, stress management, alcohol, and recreational drug use), tangible assistance (e.g., transportation to clinic appointments, household help), and emotional support. The programs may be delivered by multidisciplinary teams of health professionals, specially trained lay workers, or combination of lay and professional workers.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess effects of programs offering additional social support compared with routine care, for pregnant women believed at high risk for giving birth to babies that are either preterm or weigh less than 2500 gm, or both, at birth. Secondary objectives were to determine whether effectiveness of support was mediated by timing of onset (early versus later in pregnancy) or type of provider (healthcare professional or lay woman).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of additional support during at-risk pregnancy by either a professional (social worker, midwife, or nurse) or specially trained lay person, compared to routine care. We defined additional support as some form of emotional support (e.g., counseling, reassurance, sympathetic listening) and information or advice or both, either in home visits or during clinic appointments, and could include tangible assistance (e.g., transportation to clinic appointments, assistance with care of other children at home).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors evaluated methodological quality. We performed double data entry.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 trials (12,264 women). Programs offering additional social support for at-risk pregnant women were not associated with improvements in any perinatal outcomes, but there was a reduction in the likelihood of antenatal hospital admission (three trials; n = 737; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92) and caesarean birth (nine trials; n = 4522; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women need the support of caring family members, friends, and health professionals. While programs which offer additional support during pregnancy are unlikely to prevent the pregnancy from resulting in a low birthweight or preterm baby, they may be helpful in reducing the likelihood of antenatal hospital admission and caesarean birth.

Evidence for perinatal and child health care guidelines in crisis settings: can Cochrane help?

BACKGROUND

It is important that healthcare provided in crisis settings is based on the best available research evidence. We reviewed guidelines for child and perinatal health care in crisis situations to determine whether they were based on research evidence, whether Cochrane systematic reviews were available in the clinical areas addressed by these guidelines and whether summaries of these reviews were provided in Evidence Aid.

METHODS

Broad internet searches were undertaken to identify relevant guidelines. Guidelines were appraised using AGREE and the clinical areas that were relevant to perinatal or child health were extracted. We searched The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify potentially relevant reviews. For each review we determined how many trials were included, and how many were conducted in resource-limited settings.

RESULTS

Six guidelines met selection criteria. None of the included guidelines were clearly based on research evidence. 198 Cochrane reviews were potentially relevant to the guidelines. These reviews predominantly addressed nutrient supplementation, breastfeeding, malaria, maternal hypertension, premature labour and prevention of HIV transmission. Most reviews included studies from developing settings. However for large portions of the guidelines, particularly health services delivery, there were no relevant reviews. Only 18 (9.1%) reviews have summaries in Evidence Aid.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not identify any evidence-based guidelines for perinatal and child health care in disaster settings. We found many Cochrane reviews that could contribute to the evidence-base supporting future guidelines. However there are important issues to be addressed in terms of the relevance of the available reviews and increasing the number of reviews addressing health care delivery.

Reducing stillbirths: prevention and management of medical disorders and infections during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

An estimated two-thirds of the world's 3.2 million stillbirths occur antenatally, prior to labour, and are often overlooked in policy and programs. Poorly recognised, untreated or inadequately treated maternal infections such as syphilis and malaria, and maternal conditions including hypertensive disorders, are known risk factors for stillbirth.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review of the evidence for 16 antenatal interventions with the potential to prevent stillbirths. We searched a range of sources including PubMed and the Cochrane Library. For interventions with prior Cochrane reviews, we conducted additional meta-analyses including eligible newer randomised controlled trials following the Cochrane protocol. We focused on interventions deliverable at the community level in low-/middle-income countries, where the burden of stillbirths is greatest.

RESULTS

Few of the studies we included reported stillbirth as an outcome; most that did were underpowered to assess this outcome. While Cochrane reviews or meta-analyses were available for many interventions, few focused on stillbirth or perinatal mortality as outcomes, and evidence was frequently conflicting. Several interventions showed clear evidence of impact on stillbirths, including heparin therapy for certain maternal indications; syphilis screening and treatment; and insecticide-treated bed nets for prevention of malaria. Other interventions, such as management of obstetric intrahepatic cholestasis, maternal anti-helminthic treatment, and intermittent preventive treatment of malaria, showed promising impact on stillbirth rates but require confirmatory studies. Several interventions reduced known risk factors for stillbirth (e.g., anti-hypertensive drugs for chronic hypertension), yet failed to show statistically significant impact on stillbirth or perinatal mortality rates. Periodontal disease emerged as a clear risk factor for stillbirth but no interventions have reduced stillbirth rates.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for some newly recognised risk factors for stillbirth, including periodontal disease, suggests the need for large, appropriately designed randomised trials to test whether intervention can minimise these risks and prevent stillbirths. Existing evidence strongly supports infection control measures, including syphilis screening and treatment and malaria prophylaxis in endemic areas, for preventing antepartum stillbirths. These interventions should be incorporated into antenatal care programs based on attributable risks and burden of disease.