Neonatal magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To review the evidence of the effects of neonatal magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection in perinatal asphyxia and hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE).

METHOD

This was a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (with meta-analysis) and non-RCTs assessing magnesium sulphate for treating perinatal asphyxia and HIE at 35 weeks or more gestation (primary outcomes: neonatal death and death or long-term major neurodevelopmental disability).

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs (2099 infants) and four non-RCTs (871 infants) were included, 23 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In RCTs, reductions in neonatal death with magnesium sulphate versus placebo or no treatment (risk ratio [RR] = 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.53-0.86; 13 RCTs), and magnesium sulphate with melatonin versus melatonin alone (RR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.58-0.95; one RCT) were observed. No difference in neonatal death was seen for magnesium sulphate with therapeutic hypothermia versus therapeutic hypothermia alone (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.34-1.26; three RCTs), or magnesium sulphate versus phenobarbital (RR = 3.00; 95% CI = 0.86-10.46; one RCT). No reduction in death or long-term neurodevelopmental disability (RR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.14-1.89; one RCT) but reductions in several short-term adverse outcomes were observed with magnesium sulphate. Evidence was low- to very-low certainty because of risk of bias and imprecision.

INTERPRETATION

Given the uncertainty of the current evidence, further robust neonatal magnesium sulphate research is justified. This may include high-quality studies to determine stand-alone effects in LMICs and effects with and after therapeutic hypothermia in high-income countries.

Validity and reliability of the behavioral signs of respiratory instability (BSRI) © scale during activity for infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia

OBJECTIVE

There is no reliable evidence on how best to evaluate the overall status of infants with severe forms of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). The Behavioral Signs of Respiratory Instability (BSRI) scale was developed as an objective measure of developmental capacity during occupational and physical therapy sessions. The purpose of this study was to determine the psychometric properties of the BSRI Scale.

STUDY DESIGN

The BSRI and Respiratory Severity Score (RSS) were compared for 25 infants with BPD and 15 infants without BPD. A cross-sectional design was used to test inter-rater reliability among 10 NICU occupational and physical therapists. A prospective cohort design was used to evaluate validity.

RESULTS

The BSRI demonstrated good to excellent inter-rater reliability (ρ = 0.47-0.91) and was strongly correlated with RSS (ρ = -0.77, p < 0.001; concurrent validity).

CONCLUSION

The BSRI Scale has preliminary psychometric support. Standardized measures like the BSRI may provide accurate, objective data that can improve care planning within interdisciplinary teams that supports brain growth and potentially improves neurodevelopment.

Antenatal magnesium sulfate to prevent cerebral palsy

Magnesium sulfate given to women before birth at <30 weeks' gestation reduces the risk of cerebral palsy in their children. Our study aimed to assess the impact of a local quality improvement programme, primarily using plan-do-study-act cycles, to increase the use of antenatal magnesium sulfate. After implementing our quality improvement programme, an average of 86% of babies delivered at <30 weeks' gestation were exposed to antenatal magnesium sulfate compared with a historical baseline rate of 63%. Our study strengthens the case for embedding quality improvement programmes in maternal perinatal care to reduce the impact of cerebral palsy on families and society.

Antenatal magnesium sulphate for preventing cerebral palsy: An economic evaluation of the impact of a quality improvement program

Previous work demonstrated that implementing a quality improvement (QI) program improves the uptake of guideline-recommended antenatal magnesium sulphate, a critical intervention known to reduce cerebral palsy risk. Here we estimate potential cost savings attributable to the improved uptake. By expanding coverage from 63 to 83% of eligible women, we estimated that five children potentially would not have received a diagnosis of cerebral palsy, a potential cost saving of $AU4.8 million in lifetime healthcare costs. Our findings strengthen the case for embedding QI approaches in perinatal care to reduce the incidence of cerebral palsy.

Pregnant women's experiences of social distancing behavioural guidelines during the Covid-19 pandemic 'lockdown' in the UK, a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Covid-19 triggered the rapid roll-out of mass social distancing behavioural measures for infection control. Pregnant women were categorised as 'at risk' requiring extra vigilance with behavioural guidelines. Their understanding and ability to adhere to recommendations was unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To complete a behavioural analysis of the determinants of recommended social distancing behaviour in pregnant women, according to the 'capability, opportunity, motivation and behaviour' ('COM-B') model to inform the development of recommendations/materials to support pregnant women in understanding and adhering to behavioural guidelines.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study with pregnant women in the Bristol area (UK).

METHODS

Semi-structured telephone/videoconference interviews were conducted following a topic guide informed by the COM-B model, transcribed verbatim and subjected to framework analysis. Infographic materials were iteratively produced with stakeholder consultation, to support pregnant women.

RESULTS

Thirty-one women participated (selected for demographic range). Women reported adhering to social distancing recommendations and intended to continue. COM-B analysis identified gaps in understanding around risk, vulnerability, and the extent of required social distancing, as well as facilitators of social distancing behaviour (e.g. social support, motivation to stay safe, home environment/resources). Additional themes around detrimental mental health effects and changes to maternity healthcare from the social distancing measures were identified. Infographic resources (plus midwife report) addressing women's key concerns were produced and disseminated.

CONCLUSIONS

The COM-B model provided useful details of determinants of pregnant women's adherence to social distancing behaviours. The confusion of what being 'at risk' meant and varying interpretation of what was expected indicates a need for greater clarity around categories and guidance. The loss of maternity care and negative mental health effects of social distancing suggest a growing area of unmet health needs to be addressed in future.

Maternal vaccines during the Covid-19 pandemic:A qualitative interview study with UK pregnant women

BACKGROUND

There is suboptimal uptake of recommended maternal vaccines (pertussis and influenza) during pregnancy in the UK. The Covid-19 pandemic has impacted healthcare services, and potentially vaccine coverage, and brought the need for new vaccines to be tested and rolled out.

OBJECTIVES

To explore: i) the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on pregnant women's access to, and attitudes towards, routine maternal vaccines and; ii) women's attitudes towards testing Covid-19 vaccines on pregnant women and their personal willingness to take part in such a trial.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study with pregnant women in the Bristol and surrounding area (UK).

METHODS

Semi-structured telephone/videoconference interviews were conducted (following a topic guide), transcribed verbatim and subjected to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-one pregnant women (selected for demographic range) were interviewed in April/May 2020. Participants felt the pandemic had elevated the importance of routine maternal vaccines, though women were concerned about safety management around appointment attendance. Women were wary of receiving a new Covid-19 vaccine, with most perceiving it as riskier than Covid-19 itself.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to maximise the safety and efficiency of maternity appointments to encourage uptake of routine maternal vaccines, and to communicate this well. For pregnant women to gain a new vaccine or participate in a vaccine trial, they need to be convinced that the risk posed by the virus is greater than any risk of receiving a new vaccine.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for women at risk during pregnancy and the early postnatal period

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. Some women are at increased risk of VTE during pregnancy and the early postnatal period (e.g. caesarean section, family history of VTE, or thrombophilia), and so prophylaxis may be considered. As some methods of prophylaxis carry risks of adverse effects, and risk of VTE is often low, benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period on the risk of venous thromboembolic disease and adverse effects in women at increased risk of VTE.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 October 2019). In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for unpublished, planned and ongoing trial reports (18 October 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing one method of thromboprophylaxis with placebo or no treatment, or two (or more) methods of thromboprophylaxis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and judged certainty of evidence for selected critical outcomes (using GRADE). We conducted fixed-effect meta-analysis and reported data (all dichotomous) as summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine trials (involving 3839 women), overall at moderate to high risk of bias were included. Trials were conducted across the antenatal, peripartum and postnatal periods, with most in high-income countries. Interventions included types and regimens of heparin (low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH)), hydroxyethyl starch (HES), and compression stockings or devices. Data were limited due to a small number of trials in comparisons and/or few or no events reported. All critical outcomes (assessed for comparisons of heparin versus no treatment/placebo, and LMWH versus UFH) were considered to have very low-certainty evidence, downgraded mainly for study limitations and imprecise effect estimates.  Maternal death was not reported in most studies. Antenatal (± postnatal) prophylaxis For the primary outcomes symptomatic thromboembolic events pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and the critical outcome of adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment, the evidence was very uncertain.  Symptomatic thromboembolic events: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.98; 4 trials, 476 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.49; 4 trials, 404 women; very low-certainty evidence); Symptomatic PE: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.02 to 7.14; 3 trials, 187 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women); Symptomatic DVT: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.10; 4 trials, 227 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women); Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.05 to 5.31; 1 trial, 139 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; 2 trials, 226 women; very low-certainty evidence). Peripartum/postnatal prophylaxis Vaginal or caesarean birth When UFH and no treatment were compared, the effects on symptomatic thromboembolic events (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.36; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), symptomatic PE (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.34; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), and symptomatic DVT  (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.03 to 2.55; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence) were very uncertain.  Maternal death and adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported. Caesarean birth Symptomatic thromboembolic events: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.39 to 4.27; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence); Symptomatic PE: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.25 to 4.87; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 217 women);  Symptomatic DVT: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.24 to 6.94; 5 trials, 1140 women; very low-certainty evidence); LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence); Maternal death: - heparin versus placebo (no events, 1 trial, 300 women); Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment: - heparin versus placebo (no events;  1 trial, 140 women). Postnatal prophylaxis No events were reported for LMWH versus no treatment/placebo for: symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic PE and symptomatic DVT (all 2 trials, 58 women), or maternal death (1 trial, 24 women). Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported. We were unable to conduct subgroup analyses due to lack of data. Sensitivity analysis including the nine studies at low risk of bias did not impact overall findings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about benefits and harms of VTE thromboprophylaxis in women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period at increased risk of VTE. Further high-quality very large-scale randomised trials are needed to determine effects of currently used treatments in women with different VTE risk factors. As sufficiently large definitive trials are unlikely to be funded, secondary data analyses based on high-quality registry data are important.

Linking data from a large clinical trial with the Australian Cerebral Palsy Register

AIM

To link data from a large maternal perinatal trial with the Australian Cerebral Palsy Register (ACPR) to identify children with cerebral palsy (CP).

METHOD

Deidentified data from the Australasian Collaborative Trial of Magnesium Sulphate (ACTOMgSO₄ ) and the ACPR were linked. Children born from 1996 to 2000 at Australian hospitals who survived and had 2-year paediatric assessments were included. Children identified with CP in: (1) both the ACTOMgSO₄ (2y) and the ACPR (5y), (2) the ACTOMgSO₄ only, and (3) the ACPR only were compared.

RESULTS

We included 913 children (492 males, 421 females; mean gestational age at birth 27.8wks [standard deviation 2.1wks]; range 23.0-40.0wks). Eighty-four children received a CP diagnosis: 35 by the ACTOMgSO₄ and the ACPR, 29 by the ACTOMgSO₄ only, and 20 by the ACPR only. The ACTOMgSO₄ diagnosed 76.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.9-84.1) and the ACPR identified 65.5% (95% CI 54.7-74.9). Children born in states/territories with long-standing versus more recently established registers were more likely to be included on the ACPR (p<0.05).

INTERPRETATION

Linking deidentified perinatal trial data with the ACPR was achieved. Limitations of both strategies for identifying children with CP in this era (late 1990s and early 2000s) probably explain many of the differences observed, and inform future linkage studies and evaluations of CP-preventive interventions.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

Randomized trial data were linked with the Australian Cerebral Palsy Register. Trial (2y) and register (up to 5y) diagnoses of cerebral palsy (CP) differed. States with long-standing registers were more likely to include children with CP.

Aspirin (single dose) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Perineal trauma, due to spontaneous tears, surgical incision (episiotomy), or in association with operative vaginal birth, is common after vaginal birth, and is often associated with postpartum perineal pain. Birth over an intact perineum may also lead to perineal pain. There are adverse health consequences associated with perineal pain for the women and their babies in the short- and long-term, and the pain may interfere with newborn care and the establishment of breastfeeding. Aspirin has been used in the management of postpartum perineal pain, and its effectiveness and safety should be assessed. This is an update of the review, last published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of a single dose of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), including at different doses, in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (4 October 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (4 October 2019) and screened reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), assessing single dose aspirin compared with placebo, no treatment, a different dose of aspirin, or single dose paracetamol or acetaminophen, for women with perineal pain in the early postpartum period. We planned to include cluster-RCTs, but none were identified. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Data were checked for accuracy. The certainty of the evidence for the main comparison (aspirin versus placebo) was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs, 16 of which randomised 1132 women to aspirin or placebo; one RCT did not report numbers of women. Two RCTs (of 16) did not contribute data to meta-analyses. All women had perineal pain post-episiotomy, and were not breastfeeding. Studies were published between 1967 and 1997, and the risk of bias was often unclear, due to poor reporting. We included four comparisons: aspirin versus placebo (15 RCTs); 300 mg versus 600 mg aspirin (1 RCT); 600 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (2 RCTs); and 300 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (1 RCT). Aspirin versus placebo Aspirin may result in more women reporting adequate pain relief four to eight hours after administration compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.42; 13 RCTs, 1001 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether aspirin compared with placebo has an effect on the need for additional pain relief (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.37; 10 RCTs, 744 women; very low-certainty evidence), or maternal adverse effects (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.06; 14 RCTs, 1067 women; very low-certainty evidence), four to eight hours after administration. Analyses based on dose did not reveal any clear subgroup differences. 300 mg versus 600 mg aspirin It is uncertain whether over four hours after administration, 300 mg compared with 600 mg aspirin has an effect on adequate pain relief (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.86; 1 RCT, 81 women) or the need for additional pain relief (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.88; 1 RCT, 81 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group. 600 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin It is uncertain whether over four to eight hours after administration, 600 mg compared with 1200 mg aspirin has an effect on adequate pain relief (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 121 women), the need for additional pain relief (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.68; 2 RCTs, 121 women), or maternal adverse effects (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; 2 RCTs, 121 women). 300 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin It is uncertain whether over four hours after administration, 300 mg compared with 1200 mg aspirin has an effect on adequate pain relief (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.32; 1 RCT, 80 women) or need for additional pain relief (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.18; 1 RCT, 80 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group. None of the included RCTs reported on neonatal adverse effects. No RCTs reported on secondary review outcomes of: prolonged hospitalisation due to perineal pain; re-hospitalisation due to perineal pain; fully breastfeeding at discharge; mixed feeding at discharge; fully breastfeeding at six weeks; mixed feeding at six weeks; perineal pain at six weeks; maternal views; or maternal postpartum depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single dose aspirin may increase adequate pain relief in women with perineal pain post-episiotomy compared with placebo. It is uncertain whether aspirin has an effect on the need for additional analgesia, or on maternal adverse effects, compared with placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision, and publication bias. Aspirin may be considered for use in non-breastfeeding women with post-episiotomy perineal pain. Included RCTs excluded breastfeeding women, so there was no evidence to assess the effects of aspirin on neonatal adverse effects or breastfeeding. Future RCTs should be designed to ensure low risk of bias, and address gaps in the evidence, such as the secondary outcomes established for this review. Current research has focused on women with post-episiotomy pain; future RCTs could be extended to include women with perineal pain associated with spontaneous tears or operative birth.

Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation

BACKGROUND

Risks of stillbirth or neonatal death increase as gestation continues beyond term (around 40 weeks' gestation). It is unclear whether a policy of labour induction can reduce these risks. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review that was originally published in 2006 and subsequently updated in 2012 and 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of a policy of labour induction at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation compared with a policy of awaiting spontaneous labour indefinitely (or until a later gestational age, or until a maternal or fetal indication for induction of labour arises) on pregnancy outcomes for the infant and the mother.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in pregnant women at or beyond 37 weeks, comparing a policy of labour induction with a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour (expectant management). We also included trials published in abstract form only. Cluster-RCTs, quasi-RCTs and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review. We included pregnant women at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation. Since risk factors at this stage of pregnancy would normally require intervention, only trials including women at low risk for complications, as defined by trialists, were eligible. The trials of induction of labour in women with prelabour rupture of membranes at or beyond term were not considered in this review but are considered in a separate Cochrane Review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included 34 RCTs (reporting on over 21,000 women and infants) mostly conducted in high-income settings. The trials compared a policy to induce labour usually after 41 completed weeks of gestation (> 287 days) with waiting for labour to start and/or waiting for a period before inducing labour. The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias. Compared with a policy of expectant management, a policy of labour induction was associated with fewer (all-cause) perinatal deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.64; 22 trials, 18,795 infants; high-certainty evidence). There were four perinatal deaths in the labour induction policy group compared with 25 perinatal deaths in the expectant management group. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with induction of labour, in order to prevent one perinatal death, was 544 (95% CI 441 to 1042). There were also fewer stillbirths in the induction group (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.75; 22 trials, 18,795 infants; high-certainty evidence); two in the induction policy group and 16 in the expectant management group. For women in the policy of induction arms of trials, there were probably fewer caesarean sections compared with expectant management (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.95; 31 trials, 21,030 women; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably little or no difference in operative vaginal births with induction (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.10; 22 trials, 18,584 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Induction may make little or difference to perineal trauma (severe perineal tear: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.26; 5 trials; 11,589 women; low-certainty evidence). Induction probably makes little or no difference to postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15, 9 trials; 12,609 women; moderate-certainty evidence), or breastfeeding at discharge (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 trials, 7487 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Very low certainty evidence means that we are uncertain about the effect of induction or expectant management on the length of maternal hospital stay (average mean difference (MD) -0.19 days, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.18; 7 trials; 4120 women; Tau² = 0.20; I² = 94%). Rates of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission were lower (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.96; 17 trials, 17,826 infants; high-certainty evidence), and probably fewer babies had Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes in the induction groups compared with expectant management (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96; 20 trials, 18,345 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Induction or expectant management may make little or no difference for neonatal encephalopathy (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.31; 2 trials, 8851 infants; low-certainty evidence, and probably makes little or no difference for neonatal trauma (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.49; 5 trials, 13,106 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) for induction compared with expectant management. Neurodevelopment at childhood follow-up and postnatal depression were not reported by any trials. In subgroup analyses, no differences were seen for timing of induction (< 40 versus 40-41 versus > 41 weeks' gestation), by parity (primiparous versus multiparous) or state of cervix for any of the main outcomes (perinatal death, stillbirth, NICU admission, caesarean section, operative vaginal birth, or perineal trauma).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear reduction in perinatal death with a policy of labour induction at or beyond 37 weeks compared with expectant management, though absolute rates are small (0.4 versus 3 deaths per 1000). There were also lower caesarean rates without increasing rates of operative vaginal births and there were fewer NICU admissions with a policy of induction. Most of the important outcomes assessed using GRADE had high- or moderate-certainty ratings. While existing trials have not yet reported on childhood neurodevelopment, this is an important area for future research. The optimal timing of offering induction of labour to women at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation needs further investigation, as does further exploration of risk profiles of women and their values and preferences. Offering women tailored counselling may help them make an informed choice between induction of labour for pregnancies, particularly those continuing beyond 41 weeks - or waiting for labour to start and/or waiting before inducing labour.

Interventions to prevent women from developing gestational diabetes mellitus: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing, with approximately 15% of pregnant women affected worldwide, varying by country, ethnicity and diagnostic thresholds. There are associated short- and long-term health risks for women and their babies.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of interventions for preventing GDM.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (6 August 2019) with key words 'gestational diabetes' OR 'GDM' to identify reviews pre-specifying GDM as an outcome. We included reviews of interventions in women who were pregnant or planning a pregnancy, irrespective of their GDM risk status. Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed quality of evidence using ROBIS and GRADE tools. We assigned interventions to categories with graphic icons to classify the effectiveness of interventions as: clear evidence of benefit or harm (GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a confidence interval (CI) that did not cross the line of no effect); clear evidence of no effect or equivalence (GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a narrow CI crossing the line of no effect); possible benefit or harm (low-quality evidence with a CI that did not cross the line of no effect or GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a wide CI); or unknown benefit or harm (GRADE low-quality evidence with a wide CI or very low-quality evidence).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 Cochrane Reviews (71 trials, 23,154 women) with data on GDM. Nine additional reviews pre-specified GDM as an outcome, but did not identify GDM data in included trials. Ten of the 11 reviews were judged to be at low risk of bias and one review at unclear risk of bias. Interventions assessed included diet, exercise, a combination of diet and exercise, dietary supplements, pharmaceuticals, and management of other health problems in pregnancy. The quality of evidence ranged from high to very low. Diet Unknown benefit or harm: there was unknown benefit or harm of dietary advice versus standard care, on the risk of GDM: risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.04; 5 trials; 1279 women; very low-quality evidence. There was unknown benefit or harm of a low glycaemic index diet versus a moderate-high glycaemic index diet on the risk of GDM: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.31; 4 trials; 912 women; low-quality evidence. Exercise Unknown benefit or harm: there was unknown benefit or harm for exercise interventions versus standard antenatal care on the risk of GDM: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.84; 3 trials; 826 women; low-quality evidence. Diet and exercise combined Possible benefit: combined diet and exercise interventions during pregnancy versus standard care possibly reduced the risk of GDM: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 19 trials; 6633 women; moderate-quality evidence. Dietary supplements Clear evidence of no effect: omega-3 fatty acid supplementation versus none in pregnancy had no effect on the risk of GDM: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.26; 12 trials; 5235 women; high-quality evidence. Possible benefit: myo-inositol supplementation during pregnancy versus control possibly reduced the risk of GDM: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.64; 3 trials; 502 women; low-quality evidence. Possible benefit: vitamin D supplementation versus placebo or control in pregnancy possibly reduced the risk of GDM: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 4 trials; 446 women; low-quality evidence. Unknown benefit or harm: there was unknown benefit or harm of probiotic with dietary intervention versus placebo with dietary intervention (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 1 trial; 114 women; very low-quality evidence), or probiotic with dietary intervention versus control (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.92; 1 trial; 111 women; very low-quality evidence) on the risk of GDM. There was unknown benefit or harm of vitamin D + calcium supplementation versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.84; 1 trial; 54 women; very low-quality evidence) or vitamin D + calcium + other minerals versus calcium + other minerals (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.73; 1 trial; 1298 women; very low-quality evidence) on the risk of GDM. Pharmaceutical Possible benefit: metformin versus placebo given to obese pregnant women possibly reduced the risk of GDM: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.19; 3 trials; 892 women; moderate-quality evidence. Unknown benefit or harm:eight small trials with low- to very low-quality evidence showed unknown benefit or harm for heparin, aspirin, leukocyte immunisation or IgG given to women with a previous stillbirth on the risk of GDM. Management of other health issues Clear evidence of no effect: universal versus risk based screening of pregnant women for thyroid dysfunction had no effect on the risk of GDM: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25; 1 trial; 4516 women; moderate-quality evidence. Unknown benefit or harm: there was unknown benefit or harm of using fractional exhaled nitrogen oxide versus a clinical algorithm to adjust asthma therapy on the risk of GDM: RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.77; 1 trial; 210 women; low-quality evidence. There was unknown benefit or harm of pharmacist led multidisciplinary approach to management of maternal asthma versus standard care on the risk of GDM: RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 99.82; 1 trial; 58 women; low-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No interventions to prevent GDM in 11 systematic reviews were of clear benefit or harm. A combination of exercise and diet, supplementation with myo-inositol, supplementation with vitamin D and metformin were of possible benefit in reducing the risk of GDM, but further high-quality evidence is needed. Omega-3-fatty acid supplementation and universal screening for thyroid dysfunction did not alter the risk of GDM. There was insufficient high-quality evidence to establish the effect on the risk of GDM of diet or exercise alone, probiotics, vitamin D with calcium or other vitamins and minerals, interventions in pregnancy after a previous stillbirth, and different asthma management strategies in pregnancy. There is a lack of trials investigating the effect of interventions prior to or between pregnancies on risk of GDM.

P1115Cardiac SABR for ventricular tachycardia - initial UK experience

OnBehalf

United Kingdom Cardiac SABR consortium

Background

Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) is a novel non-invasive treatment for Ventricular Tachycardia (VT) refractory to standard catheter ablation. 3 UK hospitals have started compassionate use cardiac SABR programmes, and are working in close collaboration.

Purpose

To report initial UK experience for treatment of refractory VT with cardiac SABR.

Methods

All patients had undergone prior unsuccessful invasive ablation with VT recurrence despite anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) use. High-resolution CT imaging with 3D reconstruction was combined with 12 lead ECGs of VT and prior invasive +/- non-invasive electrophysiology mapping data to define a cardiac target. Treatment margins were modified to account for cardiac/respiratory motion and to minimise off target treatment to other organs as per clinical SABR practice. Single fraction high dose treatment (20-25 Gy) was delivered by CT guided Linear Accelerator. Patients were assessed regularly with clinical review and remote device monitoring.

Results

3 patients have been treated so far with aetiologies of prior myocarditis, non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy and ischaemic cardiomyopathy. All patients successfully received planned SABR treatment in &lt;1 hour with no peri-procedural complications. Current follow up is to 4 months. Clinical course was variable – patient 1 had a flare of VT post-SABR requiring temporary escalation of AADs before VT was suppressed, patient 2 had initial suppression of VT but died from decompensated heart failure with further VT after 4 weeks, patient 3 had further VT with a different exit site and underwent repeat invasive ablation and escalated AAD use to achieve VT suppression.

Conclusions

Cardiac SABR shows promise for VT control, but further experience and trials are needed. Integration of imaging and electrophysiology data to generate accurate targets appears critical. The effect of SABR seems to develop over several weeks after therapy. Patient selection and timing of SABR delivery is important with acknowledgement that competing causes of death exist in patients with refractory VT entering a compassionate use program.

Abstract Figure. Example SBRT plan

664Local catheter impedance drop during pulmonary vein isolation predicts conduction block in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: initial results of the LOCALIZE clinical trial

Funding Acknowledgements

Boston Scientific

Background

Radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) requires resistively heating cardiac tissue to create conduction block. Creation of an RF lesion results in an impedance drop and the magnitude of this drop depends on the temperature and amount of myocardium being heated. Pre-clinical and clinical evaluation of an advanced local impedance (LI) metric found that greater LI drops were indicative of more effective lesion formation.

Purpose

To evaluate whether LI drop is associated with conduction block after first pass encirclement of the PVs in patients with paroxysmal AF.

Methods

LOCALIZE is an ongoing, single-arm, multi-center clinical trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03232645). LOCALIZE consists of an index PVI procedure (results presented here) and a 3-month follow-up mapping procedure. In the index procedure, electroanatomical maps of the left atrium were created and ipsilateral PVs were divided into 8 anatomical segments (n = 16 per patient). PVI was performed using point-by-point ablation with blinding of operators to LI. Following initial encirclement and a 20-minute wait period, coronary sinus-paced electroanatomical maps were created to identify gaps within anatomical segments. Gaps were annotated on the map and subsequently ablated. Mean LI drop within each segment was calculated offline as an estimate of regional RF energy delivery (Figure - Left). The diagnostic accuracy of LI drop for predicting segment block was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis in segments with inter-lesion spacing ≤6mm.

Results

Forty-seven patients with paroxysmal AF underwent PVI at 5 centers (age 62 ± 11 years, male 55.3%). All patients left the index procedure with all PVs isolated. When blinded to LI (n = 3,064 ablations), median baseline LI was 106 (IQR: 97-115) Ω and median LI drop was 18.4 (12.7-24.9) Ω. After first pass encirclement, blocked segments had a significantly larger LI drop (20.2 [14.6-26.0] Ω) than segments with gaps (10.6 [6.9-15.1] Ω, p &lt; 0.01, Figure - Right). The association between LI drop and block was further evaluated along anatomical anterior/posterior wall thickness differences. Anterior block segments were found to have significantly larger LI drops (21.0 [15.9-27.2] Ω) than posterior block segments (16.6 [12.7-23.7] Ω, p &lt; 0.01). ROC analysis of segments with inter-lesion spacing ≤6mm identified optimal LI cut-off values of 16Ω in anterior segments and 11Ω posteriorly, which had positive predictive values for conduction block of 95.6% and 96.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

The magnitude of LI drop is predictive of acute PVI segment conduction block in patients with paroxysmal AF. The thinner posterior wall required smaller LI drops for block compared to the thicker anterior wall. With inter-lesion spacing of ≤6mm, reaching a LI drop of ≥16Ω anteriorly and ≥11Ω posteriorly was highly predictive of acute segment block in de novo PVI.

Abstract Figure. Local impedance drop in de novo PVI

Protocol for a longitudinal, prospective cohort study investigating the biology of uterine fibroids and endometriosis, and patients' quality of life: the FENOX study

INTRODUCTION

Millions of women suffer from the consequences of endometriosis and uterine fibroids, with fibroids the cause for over 50% of hysterectomies in the USA, and direct costs for their treatment estimated at between US$4 and US$9 billion. Endometriosis commonly affects millions of women worldwide predominantly during reproductive age, with severe menstrual and non-menstrual pain and subfertility the main symptoms. Due to the 'unhappy triad' of endometriosis-lack of awareness, lack of clinically relevant biomarkers and the unspecific nature of symptoms-women wait on average for 8-12 years before the definitive endometriosis diagnosis is made. Treatment options for both conditions are not satisfactory at the moment, especially with a view to preserving fertility for the women and families affected. In the Fibroids and Endometriosis Oxford (FENOX) study, we combine the investigation of fibroids and endometriosis, and plan to collect high-quality tissue samples and medical data of participants over a time frame of 5 years after surgical intervention.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Biological samples such as blood, saliva, urine, fat, peritoneal fluid and-if found-endometrial tissue or fibroids as well as detailed clinical and intraoperative data will be collected from women undergoing surgery and participating in the study after informed consent. We plan to recruit up to 1200 participants per disease arm (ie, endometriosis and uterine fibroids) over 5 years. Participants will fill in detailed and validated questionnaires on their medical history and quality of life, with follow-ups for 5 years. Enrolment started on 2 April 2018, and FENOX will close on 31 March 2028. We will analyse the biological samples using state-of-the-art molecular biology methods and correlate the findings with the medical records and questionnaire data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The findings will be published in high-ranking journals in the field and presented at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13560263.

Simultaneous Determination of Multiple Tetracycline Residues in Milk by Metal Chelate Affinity Chromatography: Collaborative Study

To meet federal and state regulatory needs, a liquid chromatographic (LC) method with ultraviolet (UV) detection was developed for determination of 7 tetracyclines at 30 ng/mL in milk. Raw milk samples are defatted, acidified, and centrifuged to remove proteins, and tetracyclines are specifically absorbed from the milk by chelation with metal ions bound to small Chelating Sepharose Fast Flow columns. Tetracyclines are removed from these columns with EDTA-containing buffer, and extracts are further cleaned by ultrafiltration. Finally, extracts are concentrated and analyzed simultane ously by using on-line concentration. This method was validated in a collaborative study that involved 11 laboratories, including the authors’ laboratory. Each laboratory was asked to prepare and analyze known control and fortified milk samples, as well as 18 coded blind samples. Eight laboratories completed all analyses. Average interlaboratory recoveries for the known fortified samples ranged from 59% (methacycline at 15 ng/mL) to 78% (oxytetracy cline at 60 ng/mL). Average recovery for each of 7 residues at 30 ng/mL were between 60 and 110%, meeting single-residue guidelines for accuracy set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Reproducibility relative standard deviation (RSDR) for the known fortified samples varied from 11 to 39%, with 6 of 7 residues at the 30 ng/mL level having RSDR values at or below 20%. Seven of 8 laboratories correctly identified blind control milk samples and all 28 residues present in blind samples. The metal chelate affinity—LC method for determination of multiple tetracycline residues in milk has been adopted first action by AOAC INTERNATIONAL.

Antenatal magnesium sulphate and adverse neonatal outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is widespread, increasing use of magnesium sulphate in obstetric practice for pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and preterm fetal neuroprotection; benefit for preventing preterm labour and birth (tocolysis) is unproven. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether antenatal magnesium sulphate is associated with unintended adverse neonatal outcomes.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

CINAHL, Cochrane Library, LILACS, MEDLINE, Embase, TOXLINE, and Web of Science, were searched (inceptions to 3 September 2019). Randomised, quasi-randomised, and non-randomised trials, cohort and case-control studies, and case reports assessing antenatal magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, fetal neuroprotection, or tocolysis, compared with placebo/no treatment or a different magnesium sulphate regimen, were included. The primary outcome was perinatal death. Secondary outcomes included pre-specified and non-pre-specified adverse neonatal outcomes. Two reviewers screened 5,890 articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias following Cochrane Handbook and RTI Item Bank guidance. For randomised trials, pooled risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated using fixed- or random-effects meta-analysis. Non-randomised data were tabulated and narratively summarised. We included 197 studies (40 randomised trials, 138 non-randomised studies, and 19 case reports), of mixed quality. The 40 trials (randomising 19,265 women and their babies) were conducted from 1987 to 2018 across high- (16 trials) and low/middle-income countries (23 trials) (1 mixed). Indications included pre-eclampsia/eclampsia (24 trials), fetal neuroprotection (7 trials), and tocolysis (9 trials); 18 trials compared magnesium sulphate with placebo/no treatment, and 22 compared different regimens. For perinatal death, no clear difference in randomised trials was observed between magnesium sulphate and placebo/no treatment (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.10; 8 trials, 13,654 babies), nor between regimens. Eleven of 138 non-randomised studies reported on perinatal death. Only 1 cohort (127 babies; moderate to high risk of bias) observed an increased risk of perinatal death with >48 versus ≤48 grams magnesium sulphate exposure for tocolysis. No clear secondary adverse neonatal outcomes were observed in randomised trials, and a very limited number of possible adverse outcomes warranting further consideration were identified in non-randomised studies. Where non-randomised studies observed possible harms, often no or few confounders were controlled for (moderate to high risk of bias), samples were small (200 babies or fewer), and/or results were from subgroup analyses. Limitations include missing data for important outcomes across most studies, heterogeneity of included studies, and inclusion of published data only.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings do not support clear associations between antenatal magnesium sulphate for beneficial indications and adverse neonatal outcomes. Further large, high-quality studies (prospective cohorts or individual participant data meta-analyses) assessing specific outcomes, or the impact of regimen, pregnancy, or birth characteristics on these outcomes, would further inform safety recommendations. PROSPERO: CRD42013004451.

Interventions to prevent women developing gestational diabetes mellitus: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Overview). The objectives are as follows:

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews regarding the effects of interventions to prevent women developing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth for improving outcomes

BACKGROUND

Stillbirth affects at least 2.6 million families worldwide every year and has enduring consequences for parents and health services. Parents entering a subsequent pregnancy following stillbirth face a risk of stillbirth recurrence, alongside increased risks of other adverse pregnancy outcomes and psychosocial challenges. These parents may benefit from a range of interventions to optimise their short- and longer-term medical health and psychosocial well-being.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different interventions or models of care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and family health outcomes, and health service utilisation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 June 2018), along with ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 June 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs). Trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion, but we found no such reports. We included trials published as abstract only, provided sufficient information was available to allow assessment of trial eligibility and risk of bias. We excluded cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments. We extracted data from published reports, or sourced data directly from trialists. We checked the data for accuracy and resolved discrepancies by discussion or correspondence with trialists, or both. We conducted an assessment of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs and one qRCT, and judged them to be at low to moderate risk of bias. Trials were carried out between the years 1964 and 2015 and took place predominantly in high-income countries in Europe. All trials assessed medical interventions; no trials assessed psychosocial interventions or incorporated psychosocial aspects of care. Trials evaluated the use of antiplatelet agents (low-dose aspirin (LDA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or both), third-party leukocyte immunisation, intravenous immunoglobulin, and progestogen. Trial participants were women who were either pregnant or attempting to conceive following a pregnancy loss, fetal death, or adverse outcome in a previous pregnancy.We extracted data for 222 women who had experienced a previous stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or more from the broader trial data sets, and included them in this review. Our GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due largely to serious imprecision in effect estimates as a result of small sample sizes, low numbers of events, and wide confidence intervals (CIs) crossing the line of no effect. Most of the analyses in this review were not sufficiently powered to detect differences in the outcomes assessed. The results presented are therefore largely uncertain.Main comparisonsLMWH versus no treatment/standard care (three RCTs, 123 women, depending on the outcome)It was uncertain whether LMWH reduced the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.32; 2 trials; 77 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse maternal psychological effects (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 trial; 40 participants; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (RR 1.01, 0.58 to 1.74; 3 trials; 114 participants; low-quality evidence). No neonatal deaths were reported in the trials assessed and no data were available for maternal-infant attachment. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups among the remaining secondary outcomes.LDA versus placebo (one RCT, 24 women)It was uncertain whether LDA reduced the risk of stillbirth (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.01), neonatal death (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.38), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.34), perinatal mortality, or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (both of the latter RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.06; all very low-quality evidence). No data were available for adverse maternal psychological effects or maternal-infant attachment. LDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight (mean difference (MD) 790.00 g, 95% CI 295.03 to 1284.97 g) when compared to placebo, but this result was very unstable due to the extremely small sample size. Whether LDA has any effect on the remaining secondary outcomes was also uncertain.Other comparisonsLDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight when compared to LDA + LMWH (MD -650.00 g, 95% CI -1210.33 to -89.67 g; 1 trial; 29 infants), as did third-party leukocyte immunisation when compared to placebo (MD 1195.00 g, 95% CI 273.35 to 2116.65 g; 1 trial, 4 infants), but these results were again very unstable due to extremely small sample sizes. The effects of the interventions on the remaining outcomes were also uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence in this review to inform clinical practice about the effectiveness of interventions to improve care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following a stillbirth. There is a clear and urgent need for well-designed trials addressing this research question. The evaluation of medical interventions such as LDA, in the specific context of stillbirth prevention (and recurrent stillbirth prevention), is warranted. However, appropriate methodologies to evaluate such therapies need to be determined, particularly where clinical equipoise may be lacking. Careful trial design and multicentre collaboration is necessary to carry out trials that would be sufficiently large to detect differences in statistically rare outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death. The evaluation of psychosocial interventions addressing maternal-fetal attachment and parental anxiety and depression is also an urgent priority. In a randomised-trial context, such trials may allocate parents to different forms of support, to determine which have the greatest benefit with the least financial cost. Importantly, consistency in nomenclature and in data collection across all future trials (randomised and non-randomised) may be facilitated by a core outcomes data set for stillbirth research. All future trials should assess short- and longer-term psychosocial outcomes for parents and families, alongside economic costs of interventions.

Omega-3 fatty acid addition during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Higher intakes of foods containing omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA), such as fish, during pregnancy have been associated with longer gestations and improved perinatal outcomes. This is an update of a review that was first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of omega-3 LCPUFA, as supplements or as dietary additions, during pregnancy on maternal, perinatal, and neonatal outcomes and longer-term outcomes for mother and child.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (16 August 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omega-3 fatty acids (as supplements or as foods, stand-alone interventions, or with a co-intervention) during pregnancy with placebo or no omega-3, and studies or study arms directly comparing omega-3 LCPUFA doses or types. Trials published in abstract form were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias in trials and assessed quality of evidence for prespecified birth/infant, maternal, child/adult and health service outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included 70 RCTs (involving 19,927 women at low, mixed or high risk of poor pregnancy outcomes) which compared omega-3 LCPUFA interventions (supplements and food) compared with placebo or no omega-3. Overall study-level risk of bias was mixed, with selection and performance bias mostly at low risk, but there was high risk of attrition bias in some trials. Most trials were conducted in upper-middle or high-income countries; and nearly half the trials included women at increased/high risk for factors which might increase the risk of adverse maternal and birth outcomes.Preterm birth < 37 weeks (13.4% versus 11.9%; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.97; 26 RCTs, 10,304 participants; high-quality evidence) and early preterm birth < 34 weeks (4.6% versus 2.7%; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.77; 9 RCTs, 5204 participants; high-quality evidence) were both lower in women who received omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3. Prolonged gestation > 42 weeks was probably increased from 1.6% to 2.6% in women who received omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3 (RR 1.61 95% CI 1.11 to 2.33; 5141 participants; 6 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence).For infants, there was a possibly reduced risk of perinatal death (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.03; 10 RCTs, 7416 participants; moderate-quality evidence: 62/3715 versus 83/3701 infants) and possibly fewer neonatal care admissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.03; 9 RCTs, 6920 participants; moderate-quality evidence - 483/3475 infants versus 519/3445 infants). There was a reduced risk of low birthweight (LBW) babies (15.6% versus 14%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99; 15 trials, 8449 participants; high-quality evidence); but a possible small increase in large-for-gestational age (LGA) babies (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.36; 6 RCTs, 3722 participants; moderate-quality evidence, for omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3. Little or no difference in small-for-gestational age or intrauterine growth restriction (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.13; 8 RCTs, 6907 participants; moderate-quality evidence) was seen.For the maternal outcomes, there is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of omega-3 on induction post-term (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.98; 3 trials, 2900 participants; low-quality evidence), maternal serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.72; 2 trials, 2690 participants; low-quality evidence), maternal admission to intensive care (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.63; 2 trials, 2458 participants; low-quality evidence), or postnatal depression (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.77; 2 trials, 2431 participants; low-quality evidence). Mean gestational length was greater in women who received omega-3 LCPUFA (mean difference (MD) 1.67 days, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.39; 41 trials, 12,517 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and pre-eclampsia may possibly be reduced with omega-3 LCPUFA (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.01; 20 trials, 8306 participants; low-quality evidence).For the child/adult outcomes, very few differences between antenatal omega-3 LCPUFA supplementation and no omega-3 were observed in cognition, IQ, vision, other neurodevelopment and growth outcomes, language and behaviour (mostly low-quality to very low-quality evidence). The effect of omega-3 LCPUFA on body mass index at 19 years (MD 0, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.83; 1 trial, 243 participants; very low-quality evidence) was uncertain. No data were reported for development of diabetes in the children of study participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the overall analysis, preterm birth < 37 weeks and early preterm birth < 34 weeks were reduced in women receiving omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3. There was a possibly reduced risk of perinatal death and of neonatal care admission, a reduced risk of LBW babies; and possibly a small increased risk of LGA babies with omega-3 LCPUFA.For our GRADE quality assessments, we assessed most of the important perinatal outcomes as high-quality (e.g. preterm birth) or moderate-quality evidence (e.g. perinatal death). For the other outcome domains (maternal, child/adult and health service outcomes) GRADE ratings ranged from moderate to very low, with over half rated as low. Reasons for downgrading across the domain were mostly due to design limitations and imprecision.Omega-3 LCPUFA supplementation during pregnancy is an effective strategy for reducing the incidence of preterm birth, although it probably increases the incidence of post-term pregnancies. More studies comparing omega-3 LCPUFA and placebo (to establish causality in relation to preterm birth) are not needed at this stage. A further 23 ongoing trials are still to report on over 5000 women, so no more RCTs are needed that compare omega-3 LCPUFA against placebo or no intervention. However, further follow-up of completed trials is needed to assess longer-term outcomes for mother and child, to improve understanding of metabolic, growth and neurodevelopment pathways in particular, and to establish if, and how, outcomes vary by different types of omega-3 LCPUFA, timing and doses; or by characteristics of women.

Treatments for women with gestational diabetes mellitus: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Successful treatments for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have the potential to improve health outcomes for women with GDM and their babies.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive synthesis of evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews of the benefits and harms associated with interventions for treating GDM on women and their babies.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (5 January 2018) for reviews of treatment/management for women with GDM. Reviews of pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes were excluded.Two overview authors independently assessed reviews for inclusion, quality (AMSTAR; ROBIS), quality of evidence (GRADE), and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 reviews. Of these, 10 provided relevant high-quality and low-risk of bias data (AMSTAR and ROBIS) from 128 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 27 comparisons, 17,984 women, 16,305 babies, and 1441 children. Evidence ranged from high- to very low-quality (GRADE). Only one effective intervention was found for treating women with GDM.EffectiveLifestyle versus usual careLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably reduces large-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.71; 6 RCTs, N = 2994; GRADE moderate-quality).PromisingNo evidence for any outcome for any comparison could be classified to this category.Ineffective or possibly harmful Lifestyle versus usual careLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably increases the risk of induction of labour (IOL) suggesting possible harm (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.46; 4 RCTs, N = 2699; GRADE moderate-quality).Exercise versus controlExercise intervention versus control for return to pre-pregnancy weight suggested ineffectiveness (body mass index, BMI) MD 0.11 kg/m², 95% CI -1.04 to 1.26; 3 RCTs, N = 254; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus oral therapyInsulin intervention versus oral therapy probably increases the risk of IOL suggesting possible harm (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 3 RCTs, N = 348; GRADE moderate-quality).Probably ineffective or harmful interventionsInsulin versus oral therapyFor insulin compared to oral therapy there is probably an increased risk of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12; 4 RCTs, N = 1214; GRADE moderate-quality).InconclusiveLifestyle versus usual careThe evidence for childhood adiposity kg/m² (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11; 3 RCTs, N = 767; GRADE moderate-quality) and hypoglycaemia was inconclusive (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.52; 6 RCTs, N = 3000; GRADE moderate-quality).Exercise versus controlThe evidence for caesarean section (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 5 RCTs, N = 316; GRADE moderate quality) and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite was inconclusive (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.61; 2 RCTs, N = 169; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus oral therapyThe evidence for the following outcomes was inconclusive: pre-eclampsia (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.52; 10 RCTs, N = 2060), caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; 17 RCTs, N = 1988), large-for-gestational age (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; 13 RCTs, N = 2352), and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26; 2 RCTs, N = 760). GRADE assessment was moderate-quality for these outcomes.Insulin versus dietThe evidence for perinatal mortality was inconclusive (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.33; 4 RCTs, N = 1137; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus insulinThe evidence for insulin aspart versus lispro for risk of caesarean section was inconclusive (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; 3 RCTs, N = 410; GRADE moderate quality).No conclusions possibleNo conclusions were possible for: lifestyle versus usual care (perineal trauma, postnatal depression, neonatal adiposity, number of antenatal visits/admissions); diet versus control (pre-eclampsia, caesarean section); myo-inositol versus placebo (hypoglycaemia); metformin versus glibenclamide (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, pregnancy-induced hypertension, death or serious morbidity composite, insulin versus oral therapy (development of type 2 diabetes); intensive management versus routine care (IOL, large-for-gestational age); post- versus pre-prandial glucose monitoring (large-for-gestational age). The evidence ranged from moderate-, low- and very low-quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is insufficient high-quality evidence about the effects on health outcomes of relevance for women with GDM and their babies for many of the comparisons in this overview comparing treatment interventions for women with GDM. Lifestyle changes (including as a minimum healthy eating, physical activity and self-monitoring of blood sugar levels) was the only intervention that showed possible health improvements for women and their babies. Lifestyle interventions may result in fewer babies being large. Conversely, in terms of harms, lifestyle interventions may also increase the number of inductions. Taking insulin was also associated with an increase in hypertensive disorders, when compared to oral therapy. There was very limited information on long-term health and health services costs. Further high-quality research is needed.

Neonatal interventions for preventing cerebral palsy: an overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

PrimaryTo summarise the evidence from Cochrane Systematic Reviews regarding effects of neonatal interventions for preventing cerebral palsy (reducing cerebral palsy risk).SecondaryTo summarise the evidence from Cochrane Systematic Reviews regarding effects of neonatal interventions that may increase cerebral palsy risk.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (27 November 2016) for reviews of neonatal interventions reporting on cerebral palsy. Two review authors assessed reviews for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed review quality (using AMSTAR and ROBIS) and quality of the evidence (using the GRADE approach). Reviews were organised by topic; findings were summarised in text and were tabulated. Interventions were categorised as effective (high-quality evidence of effectiveness); possibly effective (moderate-quality evidence of effectiveness); ineffective (high-quality evidence of harm); probably ineffective (moderate-quality evidence of harm or lack of effectiveness); and no conclusions possible (low- to very low-quality evidence).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three Cochrane Reviews were included. A further 102 reviews pre-specified the outcome cerebral palsy, but none of the included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported this outcome. Included reviews were generally of high quality and had low risk of bias, as determined by AMSTAR and ROBIS. These reviews involved 454 RCTs; data for cerebral palsy were available from 96 (21%) RCTs involving 15,885 children. Review authors considered interventions for neonates with perinatal asphyxia or with evidence of neonatal encephalopathy (3); interventions for neonates born preterm and/or at low or very low birthweight (33); and interventions for other specific groups of 'at risk' neonates (7). Quality of evidence (GRADE) ranged from very low to high.Interventions for neonates with perinatal asphyxia or with evidence of neonatal encephalopathyEffective interventions: high-quality evidence of effectivenessResearchers found a reduction in cerebral palsy following therapeutic hypothermia versus standard care for newborns with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.82; seven trials; 881 children).No conclusions possible: very low-quality evidenceOne review observed no clear differences in cerebral palsy following therapeutic hypothermia versus standard care.Interventions for neonates born preterm and/or at low or very low birthweightPossibly effective interventions: moderate-quality evidence of effectivenessResearchers found a reduction in cerebral palsy with prophylactic methylxanthines (caffeine) versus placebo for endotracheal extubation in preterm infants (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.92; one trial; 644 children).Probably ineffective interventions: moderate-quality evidence of harmResearchers reported an increase in cerebral palsy (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.98; 12 trials; 1452 children) and cerebral palsy in assessed survivors (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.00; 12 trials; 959 children) following early (at less than eight days of age) postnatal corticosteroids versus placebo or no treatment for preventing chronic lung disease in preterm infants.Probably ineffective interventions: moderate-quality evidence of lack of effectivenessTrial results showed no clear differences in cerebral palsy following ethamsylate versus placebo for prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm or very low birthweight infants (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.00; three trials, 532 children); volume expansion versus no treatment (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.20; one trial; 604 children); gelatin versus fresh frozen plasma (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.69; one trial, 399 children) for prevention of morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants; prophylactic indomethacin versus placebo for preventing mortality and morbidity in preterm infants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40; four trials; 1372 children); synthetic surfactant versus placebo for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; five trials; 1557 children); or prophylactic phototherapy versus standard care (starting phototherapy when serum bilirubin reached a pre-specified level) for preventing jaundice in preterm or low birthweight infants (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.85; two trials; 756 children).No conclusions possible: low- to very low-quality evidenceNo clear differences in cerebral palsy were observed with interventions assessed in 21 reviews.Interventions for other specific groups of 'at risk' neonatesNo conclusions possible: low- to very low-quality evidenceReview authors observed no clear differences in cerebral palsy with interventions assessed in five reviews.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview summarises evidence from Cochrane Systematic Reviews regarding effects of neonatal interventions on cerebral palsy, and can be used by researchers, funding bodies, policy makers, clinicians, and consumers to aid decision-making and evidence translation. To formally assess other benefits and/or harms of included interventions, including impact on risk factors for cerebral palsy, review of the included Reviews is recommended.Therapeutic hypothermia versus standard care for newborns with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy can prevent cerebral palsy, and prophylactic methylxanthines (caffeine) versus placebo for endotracheal extubation in preterm infants may reduce cerebral palsy risk. Early (at less than eight days of age) postnatal corticosteroids versus placebo or no treatment for preventing chronic lung disease in preterm infants may increase cerebral palsy risk.Cerebral palsy is rarely identified at birth, has diverse risk factors and aetiologies, and is diagnosed in approximately one in 500 children. To date, only a small proportion of Cochrane Systematic Reviews assessing neonatal interventions have been able to report on this outcome. There is an urgent need for long-term follow-up of RCTs of such interventions addressing risk factors for cerebral palsy (through strategies such as data linkage with registries) and for consideration of the use of relatively new interim assessments (including the General Movements Assessment). Such RCTs must be rigorous in their design and must aim for consistency in cerebral palsy outcome measurement and reporting to facilitate pooling of data and thus to maximise research efforts focused on prevention.

Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term

BACKGROUND

Beyond term, the risks of stillbirth or neonatal death increase. It is unclear whether a policy of labour induction can reduce these risks. This Cochrane review is an update of a review that was originally published in 2006 and subsequently updated in 2012 OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of a policy of labour induction at or beyond term compared with a policy of awaiting spontaneous labour or until an indication for birth induction of labour is identified) on pregnancy outcomes for infant and mother.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 October 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in pregnant women at or beyond term, comparing a policy of labour induction with a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour (expectant management). We also included trials published in abstract form only. Cluster-RCTs, quasi-RCTs and trials using a cross-over design are not eligible for inclusion in this review.We included pregnant women at or beyond term. Since a risk factor at this stage of pregnancy would normally require an intervention, only trials including women at low risk for complications were eligible. We accepted the trialists' definition of 'low risk'. The trials of induction of labour in women with prelabour rupture of membranes at or beyond term were not considered in this review but are considered in a separate Cochrane review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included 30 RCTs (reporting on 12,479 women). The trials took place in Norway, China, Thailand, the USA, Austria, Turkey, Canada, UK, India, Tunisia, Finland, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands. They were generally at a moderate risk of bias.Compared with a policy of expectant management, a policy of labour induction was associated with fewer (all-cause) perinatal deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.78; 20 trials, 9960 infants; moderate-quality evidence). There were two perinatal deaths in the labour induction policy group compared with 16 perinatal deaths in the expectant management group. The number needed to treat to for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with induction of labour in order to prevent one perinatal death was 426 (95% CI 338 to 1337). There were fewer stillbirths in the induction group (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.96; 20 trials, 9960 infants; moderate-quality evidence); there was one stillbirth in the induction policy arm and 10 in the expectant management group.For women in the policy of induction arms of trials, there were fewer caesarean sections compared with expectant management (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.99; 27 trials, 11,738 women; moderate-quality evidence); and a corresponding marginal increase in operative vaginal births with induction (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.16; 18 trials, 9281 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups for perineal trauma (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.83; 4 trials; 3028 women; low-quality evidence), postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.09 95% CI 0.92 to 1.30, 5 trials; 3315 women; low-quality evidence), or length of maternal hospital stay (average mean difference (MD) -0.34 days, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.33; 5 trials; 1146 women; Tau² = 0.49; I² 95%; very low-quality evidence).Rates of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission were lower (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01; 13 trials, 8531 infants; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer babies had Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes in the induction groups compared with expectant management (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98; 16 trials, 9047 infants; moderate-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference for neonatal trauma (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.05; 3 trials, 4255 infants; low-quality evidence), for induction compared with expectant management.Neonatal encephalopathy, neurodevelopment at childhood follow-up, breastfeeding at discharge and postnatal depression were not reported by any trials.In subgroup analyses, no clear differences between timing of induction (< 41 weeks versus ≥ 41 weeks' gestation) or by state of cervix were seen for perinatal death, stillbirth, NICU admission, caesarean section, or perineal trauma. However, operative vaginal birth was more common in the inductions at < 41 weeks' gestation subgroup compared with inductions at later gestational ages. The majority of trials (about 75% of participants) adopted a policy of induction at ≥ 41 weeks (> 287 days) gestation for the intervention arm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A policy of labour induction at or beyond term compared with expectant management is associated with fewer perinatal deaths and fewer caesarean sections; but more operative vaginal births. NICU admissions were lower and fewer babies had low Apgar scores with induction. No important differences were seen for most of the other maternal and infant outcomes.Most of the important outcomes assessed using GRADE had a rating of moderate or low-quality evidence - with downgrading decisions generally due to study limitations such as lack of blinding (a condition inherent in comparisons between a policy of acting and of waiting), or imprecise effect estimates. One outcome (length of maternal stay) was downgraded further to very low-quality evidence due to inconsistency.Although the absolute risk of perinatal death is small, it may be helpful to offer women appropriate counselling to help choose between scheduled induction for a post-term pregnancy or monitoring without (or later) induction).The optimal timing of offering induction of labour to women at or beyond term warrants further investigation, as does further exploration of risk profiles of women and their values and preferences. Individual participant meta-analysis is likely to help elucidate the role of factors, such as parity, in influencing outcomes of induction compared with expectant management.

Interventions for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth

BACKGROUND

Identification of the causes of stillbirth is critical to the primary prevention of stillbirth and to the provision of optimal care in subsequent pregnancies. A wide variety of investigations are available, but there is currently no consensus on the optimal approach. Given their cost and potential to add further emotional burden to parents, there is a need to systematically assess the effect of these interventions on outcomes for parents, including psychosocial outcomes, economic costs, and on rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of different tests, protocols or guidelines for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth on outcomes for parents, including psychosocial outcomes, economic costs, and rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 May 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. We planned to include studies published as abstract only, provided there was sufficient information to allow us to assess study eligibility. We planned to exclude cross-over trials.Participants included parents (including mothers, fathers, and partners) who had experienced a stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or greater.This review focused on interventions for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth. Such interventions are likely to be diverse, but could include:* review of maternal and family history, and current pregnancy and birth history;* clinical history of present illness;* maternal investigations (such as ultrasound, amniocentesis, antibody screening, etc.);* examination of the stillborn baby (including full autopsy, partial autopsy or noninvasive components, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerised tomography (CT) scanning, and radiography);* umbilical cord examination;* placental examination including histopathology (microscopic examination of placental tissue); and* verbal autopsy (interviews with care providers and support people to ascertain causes, without examination of the baby).We planned to include trials assessing any test, protocol or guideline (or combinations of tests/protocols/guidelines) for investigating the causes of stillbirth, compared with the absence of a test, protocol or guideline, or usual care (further details are presented in the Background, see Description of the intervention).We also planned to include trials comparing any test, protocol or guideline (or combinations of tests/protocols/guidelines) for investigating the causes of stillbirth with another, for example, the use of a limited investigation protocol compared with a comprehensive investigation protocol.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial eligibility independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We excluded five studies that were not RCTs. There were no eligible trials for inclusion in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a lack of RCT evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth. Seeking to determine the causes of stillbirth is an essential component of quality maternity care, but it remains unclear what impact these interventions have on the psychosocial outcomes of parents and families, the rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth, and the care and management of subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth. Due to the absence of trials, this review is unable to inform clinical practice regarding the investigation of stillbirths, and the specific investigations that would determine the causes.Future RCTs addressing this research question would be beneficial, but the settings in which the trials take place, and their design, need to be given careful consideration. Trials need to be conducted with the utmost care and consideration for the needs, concerns, and values of parents and families. Assessment of longer-term psychosocial variables, economic costs to health services, and effects on subsequent pregnancy care and outcomes should also be considered in any future trials.

Combined diet and exercise interventions for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a wide range of adverse health consequences for women and their infants in the short and long term. With an increasing prevalence of GDM worldwide, there is an urgent need to assess strategies for GDM prevention, such as combined diet and exercise interventions. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of diet interventions in combination with exercise interventions for pregnant women for preventing GDM, and associated adverse health consequences for the mother and her infant/child.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, comparing combined diet and exercise interventions with no intervention (i.e. standard care), that reported on GDM diagnosis as an outcome. Quasi-RCTs were excluded. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. We planned to include RCTs comparing two or more different diet/exercise interventions, however none were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of the included trials and assessed quality of evidence for selected maternal and infant/child outcomes using the GRADE approach. We checked data for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included 23 RCTs (involving 8918 women and 8709 infants) that compared combined diet and exercise interventions with no intervention (standard care). The studies varied in the diet and exercise programs evaluated and health outcomes reported. None reported receiving funding from a drug manufacturer or agency with interests in the results. Overall risk of bias was judged to be unclear due to the lack of methodological detail reported. Most studies were undertaken in high-income countries.For our primary review outcomes, there was a possible reduced risk of GDM in the diet and exercise intervention group compared with the standard care group (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.01; 6633 women; 19 RCTs; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 42%; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence). There was also a possible reduced risk of caesarean section (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02; 6089 women; 14 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence). No clear differences were seen between groups for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.22; 5366 participants; 8 RCTs; low-quality evidence), pregnancy-induced hypertension and/or hypertension (average RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.27; 3073 participants; 6 RCTs; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 62%; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.63; 3757 participants; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 5353 participants; 11 RCTs; low-quality evidence). No data were reported for infant mortality or morbidity composite.Subgroup analyses (based on trial design, maternal body mass index (BMI) and ethnicity) revealed no clear differential treatment effects. We were unable to assess the impact of maternal age, parity and specific features of the diet and exercise interventions. Findings from sensitivity analyses (based on RCT quality) generally supported those observed in the main analyses. We were not able to perform subgroup analyses based on maternal age, parity or nature of the exercise/dietary interventions due to the paucity of information/data on these characteristics and the inability to meaningfully group intervention characteristics.For most of the secondary review outcomes assessed using GRADE, there were no clear differences between groups, including for perineal trauma (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.05; 2733 participants; 2 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.98; 3653 participants; 2 RCTs; Tau² = 0.23; I² = 77%; low quality evidence); and childhood adiposity (BMI z score) (MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.40; 794 participants; 2 RCTs; Tau² = 0.04; I² = 59%; low-quality evidence). However, there was evidence of less gestational weight gain in the diet and exercise intervention group compared with the control group (mean difference (MD) -0.89 kg, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.40; 5052 women; 16 RCTs; Tau² = 0.37; I² = 43%;moderate-quality evidence). No data were reported for maternal postnatal depression or type 2 diabetes; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes, or neurosensory disability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests reduced risks of GDM and caesarean section with combined diet and exercise interventions during pregnancy as well as reductions in gestational weight gain, compared with standard care. There were no clear differences in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, perinatal mortality, large-for-gestational age, perineal trauma, neonatal hypoglycaemia, and childhood adiposity (moderate- tovery low-quality evidence).Using GRADE methodology, the evidence was assessed as moderate to very low quality. Downgrading decisions were predominantly due to design limitations (risk of bias), and imprecision (uncertain effect estimates, and at times, small sample sizes and low event rates), however two outcomes (pregnancy-induced hypertension/hypertension and neonatal hypoglycaemia), were also downgraded for unexplained inconsistency (statistical heterogeneity).Due to the variability of the diet and exercise components tested in the included studies, the evidence in this review has limited ability to inform practice. Future studies could describe the interventions used in more detail, if and how these influenced behaviour change and ideally be standardised between studies. Studies could also consider using existing core outcome sets to facilitate more standardised reporting.

Different methods and settings for glucose monitoring for gestational diabetes during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing worldwide. Blood glucose monitoring plays a crucial part in maintaining glycaemic control in women with GDM and is generally recommended by healthcare professionals. There are several different methods for monitoring blood glucose which can be carried out in different settings (e.g. at home versus in hospital).

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effects of different methods and settings for glucose monitoring for women with GDM on maternal and fetal, neonatal, child and adult outcomes, and use and costs of health care.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs) comparing different methods (such as timings and frequencies) or settings, or both, for blood glucose monitoring for women with GDM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE, for:- primary outcomes for mothers: that is, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; caesarean section; type 2 diabetes; and- primary outcomes for children: that is, large-for-gestational age; perinatal mortality; death or serious morbidity composite; childhood/adulthood neurosensory disability;- secondary outcomes for mothers: that is, induction of labour; perineal trauma; postnatal depression; postnatal weight retention or return to pre-pregnancy weight; and- secondary outcomes for children: that is, neonatal hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood adiposity; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs (10 RCTs; one qRCT) that randomised 1272 women with GDM in upper-middle or high-income countries; we considered these to be at a moderate to high risk of bias. We assessed the RCTs under five comparisons. For outcomes assessed using GRADE, we downgraded for study design limitations, imprecision and inconsistency. Three trials received some support from commercial partners who provided glucose meters or financial support, or both. Main comparisons Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring (five RCTs): we observed no clear differences between the telemedicine and standard care groups for the mother, for:- pre-eclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension (risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 3.20; 275 participants; four RCTs; very low quality evidence);- caesarean section (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.53; 478 participants; 5 RCTs; very low quality evidence); and- induction of labour (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.77; 47 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence);or for the child, for:- large-for-gestational age (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.64; 228 participants; 3 RCTs; very low quality evidence);- death or serious morbidity composite (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.66; 57 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence); and- neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.72; 198 participants; 3 RCTs; very low quality evidence).There were no perinatal deaths in two RCTs (131 participants; very low quality evidence). Self-monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring (two RCTs): we observed no clear differences between the self-monitoring and periodic glucose monitoring groups for the mother, for:- pre-eclampsia (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.49; 58 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence); and- caesarean section (average RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.27; 400 participants; 2 RCTs; low quality evidence);or for the child, for:- perinatal mortality (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.21 to 11.24; 400 participants; 2 RCTs; very low quality evidence);- large-for-gestational age (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.37; 400 participants; 2 RCTs; low quality evidence); and- neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06; 391 participants; 2 RCTs; low quality evidence). Continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) versus self-monitoring of glucose (two RCTs): we observed no clear differences between the CGMS and self-monitoring groups for the mother, for:- caesarean section (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20; 179 participants; 2 RCTs; very low quality evidence);or for the child, for:- large-for-gestational age (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; 106 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence) and- neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.78; 179 participants; 2 RCTs; very low quality evidence).There were no perinatal deaths in the two RCTs (179 participants; very low quality evidence). Other comparisons Modem versus telephone transmission for glucose monitoring (one RCT): none of the review's primary outcomes were reported in this trial Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring (one RCT): we observed no clear differences between the postprandial and preprandial glucose monitoring groups for the mother, for:- pre-eclampsia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.68; 66 participants; 1 RCT);- caesarean section (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.29; 66 participants; 1 RCT); and- perineal trauma (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.29; 66 participants; 1 RCT);or for the child, for:- neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.10; 66 participants; 1 RCT).There were fewer large-for-gestational-age infants born to mothers in the postprandial compared with the preprandial glucose monitoring group (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.78; 66 participants; 1 RCT).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from 11 RCTs assessing different methods or settings for glucose monitoring for GDM suggests no clear differences for the primary outcomes or other secondary outcomes assessed in this review.However, current evidence is limited by the small number of RCTs for the comparisons assessed, small sample sizes, and the variable methodological quality of the RCTs. More evidence is needed to assess the effects of different methods and settings for glucose monitoring for GDM on outcomes for mothers and their children, including use and costs of health care. Future RCTs may consider collecting and reporting on the standard outcomes suggested in this review.

Oral anti-diabetic agents for women with established diabetes/impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes planning pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes

BACKGROUND

While most guidance recommends the use of insulin in women whose pregnancies are affected by pre-existing diabetes, oral anti-diabetic agents may be more acceptable to women. The effects of these oral anti-diabetic agents on maternal and infant health outcomes need to be established in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance, as well as in women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus preconceptionally or during a subsequent pregnancy. This review is an update of a review that was first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who are planning a pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes, on maternal and infant health. The use of oral anti-diabetic agents for the management of gestational diabetes in a current pregnancy is evaluated in a separate Cochrane Review.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who were planning a pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Review authors checked the data for accuracy, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six RCTs (707 women), eligible for inclusion in this updated review, however, three RCTs had mixed populations (that is, they included pregnant women with gestational diabetes) and did not report data separately for the relevant subset of women for this review. Therefore we have only included outcome data from three RCTs; data were available for 241 women and their infants. The three RCTs all compared an oral anti-diabetic agent (metformin) with insulin. The women in the RCTs that contributed data had type 2 diabetes diagnosed before or during their pregnancy. Overall, the RCTs were judged to be at varying risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence for selected important outcomes using GRADE; the evidence was low- or very low-quality, due to downgrading because of design limitations (risk of bias) and imprecise effect estimates (for many outcomes only one or two RCTs contributed data).For our primary outcomes there was no clear difference between metformin and insulin groups for pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 1.20; RCTs = 2; participants = 227; very low-quality evidence) although in one RCT women receiving metformin were less likely to have pregnancy-induced hypertension (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.91; RCTs = 1; participants = 206; low-quality evidence). Women receiving metformin were less likely to have a caesarean section compared with those receiving insulin (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; RCTs = 3; participants = 241; low-quality evidence). In one RCT there was no clear difference between groups for large-for-gestational-age infants (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.72; RCTs = 1; participants = 206; very low-quality evidence). There were no perinatal deaths in two RCTs (very low-quality evidence). Neonatal mortality or morbidity composite outcome and childhood/adulthood neurosensory disability were not reported.For other secondary outcomes we assessed using GRADE, there were no clear differences between metformin and insulin groups for induction of labour (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.28; RCTs = 2; participants = 35; very low-quality evidence), though infant hypoglycaemia was reduced in the metformin group (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.62; RCTs = 3; infants = 241; very low-quality evidence). Perineal trauma, maternal postnatal depression and postnatal weight retention, and childhood/adulthood adiposity and diabetes were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient RCT data to evaluate the use of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who are planning a pregnancy, or in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests possible reductions in pregnancy-induced hypertension, caesarean section birth and neonatal hypoglycaemia with metformin compared with insulin for women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed before or during their pregnancy, and no clear differences in pre-eclampsia, induction of labour and babies that are large-for-gestational age. Further high-quality RCTs that compare any combination of oral anti-diabetic agent, insulin and dietary and lifestyle advice for these women are needed. Future RCTs could be powered to evaluate effects on short- and long-term clinical outcomes; such RCTs could attempt to collect and report on the standard outcomes suggested in this review. We have identified three ongoing studies and four are awaiting classification. We will consider these when this review is updated.

Interconception care for women with a history of gestational diabetes for improving maternal and infant outcomes

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse health outcomes for mothers and their infants both perinatally and long term. Women with a history of GDM are at risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies and may benefit from intervention in the interconception period to improve maternal and infant health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interconception care for women with a history of GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (7 April 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, including quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials evaluating any protocol of interconception care with standard care or other forms of interconception care for women with a history of GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility. In future updates of this review, at least two review authors will extract data and assess the risk of bias of included studies; the quality of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

No eligible published trials were identified. We identified a completed randomised controlled trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a diet and exercise intervention compared with standard care in women with a history of GDM, however to date, it has only published results on women who were pregnant at randomisation (and not women in the interconception period). We also identified an ongoing trial, in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, which is assessing the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention, supported with liraglutide treatment, compared with usual care. We also identified a trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a weight loss and exercise intervention compared with lifestyle education also in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, however it has not yet been published. These trials will be re-considered for inclusion in the next review update.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The role of interconception care for women with a history of GDM remains unclear. Randomised controlled trials are required evaluating different forms and protocols of interconception care for these women on perinatal and long-term maternal and infant health outcomes, acceptability of such interventions and cost-effectiveness.

Preconception care for diabetic women for improving maternal and infant health

BACKGROUND

Infants born to mothers with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus are at greater risk of congenital anomalies, perinatal mortality and significant morbidity in the short and long term. Pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes are at greater risk of perinatal morbidity and diabetic complications. The relationship between glycaemic control and health outcomes for both mothers and infants indicates the potential for preconception care for these women to be of benefit. This is an update of the original review, which was first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of preconception care in women with diabetes on health outcomes for mothers and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2017) and reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of preconception care for diabetic women. Cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We checked data for accuracy and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials involving 254 adolescent girls with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, with an overall unclear to high risk of bias. The three trials were conducted at diabetes clinics in the USA, and assessed the READY-Girls (Reproductive-health Education and Awareness of Diabetes in Youth for Girls) programme versus standard care.Considering primary outcomes, one trial reported no pregnancies in the trial period (12 months) (very low-quality evidence, with downgrading based on study limitations (risk of bias) and imprecision); in the other two trials, pregnancy was an exclusion criterion, or was not clearly reported on. None of the trials reported on the other primary maternal outcomes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and caesarean section; or primary infant outcomes, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, death or morbidity composite, or congenital malformations. Similarly, none of the trials reported on the secondary outcomes, for which we had planned to assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach (maternal: induction of labour; perineal trauma; gestational weight gain; long-term cardiovascular health; infant: adiposity; type 1 or 2 diabetes; neurosensory disability).The majority of secondary maternal and infant outcomes, and outcomes relating to the use and costs of health services were not reported by the three included trials. Regarding behaviour changes associated with the intervention, in one trial, participants in the preconception care group had a slightly higher score for the actual initiation of discussion regarding preconception care with healthcare providers at follow-up (nine months), compared with those in the standard care group (mean difference 0.40, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.82 (on a scale of 0 to 4 points); participants = 87) (a summation of four dichotomous items; possible range 0 to 4, with 0 being no discussion).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient RCT data available to assess the effects of preconception care for diabetic women on health outcomes for mothers and their infants.More high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effects of different protocols of preconception care for diabetic women. Future trials should be powered to evaluate effects on short- and long-term maternal and infant outcomes, and outcomes relating to the use and costs of health services. We have identified three ongoing studies that we will consider in the next review update.

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.

Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings for improving maternal and infant health

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, it is associated with significant morbidities for mothers and their infants in the short and long term. There is strong evidence to support treatment for GDM. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not screening all pregnant women for GDM will improve maternal and infant health and if so, the most appropriate setting for screening. This review updates a Cochrane Review, first published in 2010, and subsequently updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14 June 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings, compared with the absence of screening, or compared with other protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening. We planned to include trials published as abstracts only and cluster-randomised trials, but we did not identify any. Cross-over trials are not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. We resolved disagreements through discussion or through consulting a third reviewer.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials that randomised 4523 women and their infants. Both trials were conducted in Ireland. One trial (which quasi-randomised 3742 women, and analysed 3152 women) compared universal screening versus risk factor-based screening, and one trial (which randomised 781 women, and analysed 690 women) compared primary care screening versus secondary care screening. We were not able to perform meta-analyses due to the different interventions and comparisons assessed.Overall, there was moderate to high risk of bias due to one trial being quasi-randomised, inadequate blinding, and incomplete outcome data in both trials. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the quality of the evidence for selected outcomes for the mother and her child. Evidence was downgraded for study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates. Universal screening versus risk-factor screening (one trial) MotherMore women were diagnosed with GDM in the universal screening group than in the risk-factor screening group (risk ratio (RR) 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 3.04; participants = 3152; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported under this comparison for other maternal outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesarean birth, perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, and type 2 diabetes. ChildNeonatal outcomes: large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite, hypoglycaemia; and childhood/adulthood outcomes: adiposity, type 2 diabetes, and neurosensory disability, were not reported under this comparison. Primary care screening versus secondary care screening (one trial) MotherThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for GDM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.66; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), hypertension (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.59; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), pre-eclampsia (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 690;low-quality evidence), or caesarean section birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27; participants = 690; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported for perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, or type 2 diabetes. ChildThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for large-for-gestational age (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.96; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), neonatal complications: composite outcome, including: hypoglycaemia, respiratory distress, need for phototherapy, birth trauma, shoulder dystocia, five minute Apgar less than seven at one or five minutes, prematurity (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.71; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.38; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There was one perinatal death in the primary care screening group and two in the secondary care screening group (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.10 to 12.12; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There were no data for neurosensory disability, or childhood/adulthood adiposity or type 2 diabetes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient randomised controlled trial data evaluating the effects of screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests universal screening compared with risk factor-based screening leads to more women being diagnosed with GDM. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between primary care and secondary care screening, for outcomes: GDM, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, caesarean birth, large-for-gestational age, neonatal complications composite, and hypoglycaemia.Further, high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the value of screening for GDM, which may compare different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening (based on different risk profiles and settings), with the absence of screening, or with other protocols, guidelines or programmes. There is a need for future trials to be sufficiently powered to detect important differences in short- and long-term maternal and infant outcomes, such as those important outcomes pre-specified in this review. As only a proportion of women will be diagnosed with GDM in these trials, large sample sizes may be required.

Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin with interferon-alpha versus intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin for treating non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite local therapies, commonly transurethral resection (TUR) followed by adjuvant treatments, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) has a high rate of recurrence and progression. Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) has been shown to reduce recurrence and progression in people with NMIBC following TUR, however many people do not respond to treatment, have recurrence shortly after, or cannot tolerate standard-dose therapy. The potential for synergistic antitumour activity of interferon (IFN)-alpha (α) and BCG provides some rationale for combination therapy for people who do not tolerate or respond to standard-dose BCG therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intravesically administered BCG plus IFN-α compared with BCG alone for treating non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 8, 2016), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to 2016), Embase (OvidSP) (1974 to 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) as well as reference lists of retrieved articles and handsearched abstract proceedings of relevant conferences for the past three years. We applied no language restrictions. The date of last search of all databases was 25 August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and pseudo-randomised trials assessing intravesically administered BCG plus IFN-α versus BCG alone in adults of either gender with histologically confirmed Ta and T1 superficial bladder cancer, with or without carcinoma in situ, treated with TUR.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and employed the random-effects model for meta-analyses. For prespecified outcomes, where we were unable to derive time-to-event information (e.g. time-to-recurrence), we assessed dichotomous outcomes (e.g. recurrence) instead. We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs involving a total of 1231 participants with NMIBC in this review. Due to poor reporting, the risk of bias in the included studies was often unclear. We assessed the studies under two main comparisons: intravesical BCG plus IFN-α versus intravesical BCG alone (four RCTs), and intravesical BCG alternating with IFN-α versus intravesical BCG alone (one RCT). Intravesical BCG plus IFN-α versus intravesical BCG alone (four RCTs): We observed no clear difference between BCG plus IFN-α and BCG alone for recurrence (average risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.32; 4 RCTs; 925 participants; very low-quality evidence) or progression (average RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.87; 2 RCTs; 219 participants; low-quality evidence). The included RCTs did not report on the other primary outcome of this review, discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events. Regarding secondary outcomes, we observed no clear difference for disease-specific mortality (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.05 to 3.05; 1 RCT; 99 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two RCTs reporting contradictory findings for adverse events could not be pooled due to variation in definitions. There were no data from the included RCTs on time-to-death or disease-specific quality of life. Intravesical BCG alternating with IFN-α versus intravesical BCG alone (one RCT): We observed shorter time-to-recurrence for participants in the BCG alternating with IFN-α group compared with the BCG alone group (hazard ratio (HR) 2.86, 95% CI 1.98 to 4.13; 1 RCT; 205 participants; low-quality evidence), but no clear differences in time-to-progression (HR 2.39, 95% CI 0.92 to 6.21; 1 RCT; 205 participants; low-quality evidence) and discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.31 to 28.09; 1 RCT; 205 participants; low-quality evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, there were no clear differences between the BCG alternating with IFN-α and BCG alone groups for disease-specific mortality (HR 2.74, 95% CI 0.73 to 10.28; 1 RCT; 205 participants; low-quality evidence), time-to-death (overall survival) (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 1 RCT; 205 participants; low-quality evidence), or systemic or local adverse events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.73; 1 RCT; 205 participants; low-quality evidence). There were no data on disease-specific quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting no clear differences in recurrence or progression with BCG plus IFN-α compared with BCG alone for people with NMIBC; there was no information to determine the effect on discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events. Low-quality evidence suggests BCG alternating with IFN-α compared with BCG alone may increase time-to-recurrence, however low-quality evidence also suggests no clear differences for time-to-progression or discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events.Additional high-quality, adequately powered trials using standardised instillation regimens and doses of both BCG and IFN-α, reporting outcomes in subgroups stratified by patient and tumour characteristics, and on long-term outcomes related not only to recurrence but also to progression, discontinuation due to adverse events, and mortality may help to clarify the ideal treatment strategy and provide a more definitive result.

Different types of dietary advice for women with gestational diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Dietary advice is the main strategy for managing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). It remains unclear what type of advice is best.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different types of dietary advice for women with GDM for improving health outcomes for women and babies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (8 March 2016), PSANZ's Trials Registry (22 March 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of different types of dietary advice for women with GDM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Evidence quality for two comparisons was assessed using GRADE, for primary outcomes for the mother: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; caesarean section; type 2 diabetes mellitus; and child: large-for-gestational age; perinatal mortality; neonatal mortality or morbidity composite; neurosensory disability; secondary outcomes for the mother: induction of labour; perineal trauma; postnatal depression; postnatal weight retention or return to pre-pregnancy weight; and child: hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood adiposity; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes mellitus.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included 19 trials randomising 1398 women with GDM, at an overall unclear to moderate risk of bias (10 comparisons). For outcomes assessed using GRADE, downgrading was based on study limitations, imprecision and inconsistency. Where no findings are reported below for primary outcomes or pre-specified GRADE outcomes, no data were provided by included trials. Primary outcomes Low-moderate glycaemic index (GI) versus moderate-high GI diet (four trials): no clear differences observed for: large-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.34; two trials, 89 infants; low-quality evidence); severe hypertension or pre-eclampsia (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.86; one trial, 95 women; very low-quality evidence); eclampsia (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14; one trial, 83 women; very low-quality evidence) or caesarean section (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47; one trial, 63 women; low-quality evidence). Energy-restricted versus no energy-restricted diet (three trials): no clear differences seen for: large-for-gestational age (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.12; one trial, 123 infants; low-quality evidence); perinatal mortality (no events; two trials, 423 infants; low-quality evidence); pre-eclampsia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.97; one trial, 117 women; low-quality evidence); or caesarean section (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.56; two trials, 420 women; low-quality evidence). DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet versus control diet (three trials): no clear differences observed for: pre-eclampsia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.26; three trials, 136 women); however there were fewer caesarean sections in the DASH diet group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.76; two trials, 86 women). Low-carbohydrate versus high-carbohydrate diet (two trials): no clear differences seen for: large-for-gestational age (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.95; one trial, 149 infants); perinatal mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.49; one trial, 150 infants); maternal hypertension (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.22; one trial, 150 women); or caesarean section (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.99; two trials, 179 women). High unsaturated fat versus low unsaturated fat diet (two trials): no clear differences observed for: large-for-gestational age (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.37; one trial, 27 infants); pre-eclampsia (no cases; one trial, 27 women); hypertension in pregnancy (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.26; one trial, 27 women); caesarean section (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.50; one trial, 27 women); diabetes at one to two weeks (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 8.94; one trial, 24 women) or four to 13 months postpartum (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.10 to 9.61; one trial, six women). Low-GI versus high-fibre moderate-GI diet (one trial): no clear differences seen for: large-for-gestational age (RR 2.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 13.50; 92 infants); caesarean section (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.03; 92 women); or type 2 diabetes at three months postpartum (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.11 to 5.01; 58 women). Diet recommendation plus diet-related behavioural advice versus diet recommendation only (one trial): no clear differences observed for: large-for-gestational age (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.14; 99 infants); or caesarean section (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.62; 99 women). Soy protein-enriched versus no soy protein diet (one trial): no clear differences seen for: pre-eclampsia (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.03; 68 women); or caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.77; 68 women). High-fibre versus standard-fibre diet (one trial): no primary outcomes reported. Ethnic-specific versus standard healthy diet (one trial): no clear differences observed for: large-for-gestational age (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.45; 20 infants); neonatal composite adverse outcome (no events; 20 infants); gestational hypertension (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.32; 20 women); or caesarean birth (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.67; 20 women). Secondary outcomes For secondary outcomes assessed using GRADE no differences were observed: between a low-moderate and moderate-high GI diet for induction of labour (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.34; one trial, 63 women; low-quality evidence); or an energy-restricted and no energy-restricted diet for induction of labour (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.53; one trial, 114 women, low-quality evidence) and neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.32; two trials, 408 infants; very low-quality evidence).Few other clear differences were observed for reported outcomes. Longer-term health outcomes and health services use and costs were largely not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from 19 trials assessing different types of dietary advice for women with GDM suggests no clear differences for primary outcomes and secondary outcomes assessed using GRADE, except for a possible reduction in caesarean section for women receiving a DASH diet compared with a control diet. Few differences were observed for secondary outcomes.Current evidence is limited by the small number of trials in each comparison, small sample sizes, and variable methodological quality. More evidence is needed to assess the effects of different types of dietary advice for women with GDM. Future trials should be adequately powered to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes.

Aspirin (single dose) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Perineal trauma (due to spontaneous tears, surgical incision (episiotomy) or in association with operative vaginal birth) is common after vaginal birth, and is often associated with postpartum perineal pain. Birth over an intact perineum may also lead to perineal pain. There are adverse health consequences associated with perineal pain for the women and their babies in the short- and long-term, and the pain may interfere with newborn care and the establishment of breastfeeding. Aspirin has been used in the management of postpartum perineal pain and its effectiveness and safety should be assessed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of a single dose of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), including at different doses, in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 August 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing single dose aspirin compared with placebo, no treatment, a different dose of aspirin, or single dose paracetamol/acetaminophen for women with perineal pain in the early postpartum period. We planned to include cluster-RCTs but none were identified. Quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence for the main comparison (aspirin versus placebo) was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs, with 16 involving 1132 women randomised to aspirin or placebo (one RCT did not report numbers of women). Two RCTs (of 16) did not contribute data to review meta-analyses. All women had perineal pain post-episiotomy, and were not breastfeeding. Studies were published between 1967 and 1997, and the risk of bias was often unclear due to poor reporting.We included four comparisons: aspirin versus placebo (data from 15 RCTs); 300 mg versus 600 mg aspirin (1 RCT); 600 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (2 RCTs); and 300 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (1 RCT). Primary outcomes Aspirin versus placeboMore women who received aspirin experienced adequate pain relief compared with women who received placebo over four to eight hours after administration (risk ratio (RR) 2.03, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.69 to 2.42; 13 RCTs, 1001 women; low-quality evidence). Women who received aspirin were less likely to need additional pain relief over four to eight hours after administration (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.37; 10 RCTs, 744 women; very low-quality evidence). There was no difference in maternal adverse effects over four to eight hours post-administration (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.06; 14 RCTs, 1067 women; very low-quality evidence). Subgroup analyses based on dose did not reveal any clear subgroup differences.There was no clear difference over four hours after administration between 300 mg and 600 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.86; 1 RCT, 81 women) or need for additional pain relief (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.88; 1 RCT, 81 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group.There was no clear difference over four to eight hours after administration between 600 mg and 1200 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 121 women), need for additional pain relief (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.68; 2 RCTs, 121 women), or maternal adverse effects (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; 2 RCTs, 121 women).There was no clear difference over four hours after administration between 300 mg and 1200 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.32; 1 RCT, 80 women) or need for additional pain relief (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.18; 1 RCT, 80 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group.None of the included RCTs reported on neonatal adverse effects. Secondary outcomesNo studies reported on secondary review outcomes: prolonged hospitalisation due to perineal pain; re-hospitalisation due to perineal pain; fully breastfeeding at discharge; mixed feeding at discharge; fully breastfeeding at six weeks; mixed feeding at six weeks; perineal pain at six weeks; maternal views; maternal postpartum depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-quality evidence to suggest that single dose aspirin compared with placebo can increase pain relief in women with perineal pain post-episiotomy. Very low-quality evidence also suggested that aspirin can reduce the need for additional analgesia, without increasing maternal adverse effects. Evidence was downgraded based on study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision, and publication bias or both. RCTs excluded breastfeeding women so there is no evidence to assess the effects of aspirin on neonatal adverse effects or breastfeeding.With international guidance recommending mothers initiate breastfeeding within one hour of birth, and exclusively breastfeed for the first six months, the evidence from this review is not applicable to current recommended best practice. Aspirin may be considered for use in non-breastfeeding women with post-episiotomy perineal pain. Although formal assessment was beyond the remit of this review, current guidance suggests that other analgesic drugs (including paracetamol) should be considered first for postpartum perineal pain. Such agents are the focus of other reviews in this series on drugs for perineal pain in the early postpartum period. It is considered most likely that if RCTs are conducted in the future they could compare aspirin with other pain relievers. Future RCTs should be designed to ensure high methodological quality, and address gaps in the evidence, such as the secondary outcomes established for this review. Current research has focused on women with post-episiotomy pain, future RCTs could be extended to women with perineal pain associated with spontaneous tears or operative birth.

Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more)

BACKGROUND

Prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM) at term is managed expectantly or by planned early birth. It is not clear if waiting for birth to occur spontaneously is better than intervening, e.g. by inducing labour.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to assess the effects of planned early birth (immediate intervention or intervention within 24 hours) when compared with expectant management (no planned intervention within 24 hours) for women with term PROM on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of planned early birth compared with expectant management (either in hospital or at home) in women with PROM at 37 weeks' gestation or later.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three trials involving 8615 women and their babies were included in the update of this review. Ten trials assessed intravenous oxytocin; 12 trials assessed prostaglandins (six trials in the form of vaginal prostaglandin E2 and six as oral, sublingual or vaginal misoprostol); and one trial each assessed Caulophyllum and acupuncture. Overall, three trials were judged to be at low risk of bias, while the other 20 were at unclear or high risk of bias.Primary outcomes: women who had planned early birth were at a reduced risk of maternal infectious morbidity (chorioamnionitis and/or endometritis) than women who had expectant management following term prelabour rupture of membranes (average risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.72; eight trials, 6864 women; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 72%; low-quality evidence), and their neonates were less likely to have definite or probable early-onset neonatal sepsis (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.92; 16 trials, 7314 infants;low-quality evidence). No clear differences between the planned early birth and expectant management groups were seen for the risk of caesarean section (average RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.04; 23 trials, 8576 women; Tau² = 0.10; I² = 55%; low-quality evidence); serious maternal morbidity or mortality (no events; three trials; 425 women; very low-quality evidence); definite early-onset neonatal sepsis (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.33; six trials, 1303 infants; very low-quality evidence); or perinatal mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.66; eight trials, 6392 infants; moderate-quality evidence).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

women who had a planned early birth were at a reduced risk of chorioamnionitis (average RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82; eight trials, 6874 women; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 73%), and postpartum septicaemia (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.96; three trials, 263 women), and their neonates were less likely to receive antibiotics (average RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; 10 trials, 6427 infants; Tau² = 0.06; I² = 32%). Women in the planned early birth group were more likely to have their labour induced (average RR 3.41; 95% CI 2.87 to 4.06; 12 trials, 6945 women; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 71%), had a shorter time from rupture of membranes to birth (mean difference (MD) -10.10 hours; 95% CI -12.15 to -8.06; nine trials, 1484 women; Tau² = 5.81; I² = 60%), and their neonates had lower birthweights (MD -79.25 g; 95% CI -124.96 to -33.55; five trials, 1043 infants). Women who had a planned early birth had a shorter length of hospitalisation (MD -0.79 days; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.38; two trials, 748 women; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 59%), and their neonates were less likely to be admitted to the neonatal special or intensive care unit (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85; eight trials, 6179 infants), and had a shorter duration of hospital (-11.00 hours; 95% CI -21.96 to -0.04; one trial, 182 infants) or special or intensive care unit stay (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; four trials, 5691 infants). Women in the planned early birth group had more positive experiences compared with women in the expectant management group.No clear differences between groups were observed for endometritis; postpartum pyrexia; postpartum antibiotic usage; caesarean for fetal distress; operative vaginal birth; uterine rupture; epidural analgesia; postpartum haemorrhage; adverse effects; cord prolapse; stillbirth; neonatal mortality; pneumonia; Apgar score less than seven at five minutes; use of mechanical ventilation; or abnormality on cerebral ultrasound (no events).None of the trials reported on breastfeeding; postnatal depression; gestational age at birth; meningitis; respiratory distress syndrome; necrotising enterocolitis; neonatal encephalopathy; or disability at childhood follow-up.In subgroup analyses, there were no clear patterns of differential effects for method of induction, parity, use of maternal antibiotic prophylaxis, or digital vaginal examination. Results of the sensitivity analyses based on trial quality were consistent with those of the main analysis, except for definite or probable early-onset neonatal sepsis where no clear difference was observed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence to suggest that planned early birth (with induction methods such as oxytocin or prostaglandins) reduces the risk of maternal infectious morbidity compared with expectant management for PROM at 37 weeks' gestation or later, without an apparent increased risk of caesarean section. Evidence was mainly downgraded due to the majority of studies contributing data having some serious design limitations, and for most outcomes estimates were imprecise.Although the 23 included trials in this review involved a large number of women and babies, the quality of the trials and evidence was not high overall, and there was limited reporting for a number of important outcomes. Thus further evidence assessing the benefits or harms of planned early birth compared with expectant management, considering maternal, fetal, neonatal and longer-term childhood outcomes, and the use of health services, would be valuable. Any future trials should be adequately designed and powered to evaluate the effects on short- and long-term outcomes. Standardisation of outcomes and their definitions, including for the assessment of maternal and neonatal infection, would be beneficial.

Dietary advice interventions in pregnancy for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes occurring during pregnancy which can result in short- and long-term adverse outcomes for women and babies. With an increasing prevalence worldwide, there is a need to assess strategies, including dietary advice interventions, that might prevent GDM.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of dietary advice interventions for preventing GDM and associated adverse health outcomes for women and their babies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (3 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of dietary advice interventions compared with no intervention (standard care), or to different dietary advice interventions. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials involving 2786 women and their babies, with an overall unclear to moderate risk of bias. Six trials compared dietary advice interventions with standard care; four compared low glycaemic index (GI) with moderate- to high-GI dietary advice; one compared specific (high-fibre focused) with standard dietary advice. Dietary advice interventions versus standard care (six trials) Considering primary outcomes, a trend towards a reduction in GDM was observed for women receiving dietary advice compared with standard care (average risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 1.04; five trials, 1279 women; Tau² = 0.20; I² = 56%; P = 0.07; GRADE: very low-quality evidence); subgroup analysis suggested a greater treatment effect for overweight and obese women receiving dietary advice. While no clear difference was observed for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.46; two trials, 282 women; GRADE: low-quality evidence) a reduction in pregnancy-induced hypertension was observed for women receiving dietary advice (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; two trials, 282 women; GRADE: low-quality evidence). One trial reported on perinatal mortality, and no deaths were observed (GRADE: very low-quality evidence). None of the trials reported on large-for-gestational age or neonatal mortality and morbidity.For secondary outcomes, no clear differences were seen for caesarean section (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.24; four trials, 1194 women; Tau² = 0.02; I² = 36%; GRADE: low-quality evidence) or perineal trauma (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.08; one trial, 759 women; GRADE: very low-quality evidence). Women who received dietary advice gained less weight during pregnancy (mean difference (MD) -4.70 kg, 95% CI -8.07 to -1.34; five trials, 1336 women; Tau² = 13.64; I² = 96%; GRADE: low-quality evidence); the result should be interpreted with some caution due to considerable heterogeneity. No clear differences were seen for the majority of secondary outcomes reported, including childhood/adulthood adiposity (skin-fold thickness at six months) (MD -0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.51; one trial, 132 children; GRADE: low-quality evidence). Women receiving dietary advice had a lower well-being score between 14 and 28 weeks, more weight loss at three months, and were less likely to have glucose intolerance (one trial).The trials did not report on other secondary outcomes, particularly those related to long-term health and health service use and costs. We were not able to assess the following outcomes using GRADE: postnatal depression; maternal type 2 diabetes; neonatal hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes; and neurosensory disability. Low-GI dietary advice versus moderate- to high-GI dietary advice (four trials) Considering primary outcomes, no clear differences were shown in the risks of GDM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.31; four trials, 912 women; GRADE: low-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.86; three trials, 777 babies; Tau² = 0.61; P = 0.07; I² = 62%; GRADE: very low-quality evidence) between the low-GI and moderate- to high-GI dietary advice groups. The trials did not report on: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; perinatal mortality; neonatal mortality and morbidity.No clear differences were shown for caesarean birth (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.04; two trials, 201 women; GRADE: very low-quality evidence) and gestational weight gain (MD -1.23 kg, 95% CI -4.08 to 1.61; four trials, 787 women; Tau² = 7.31; I² = 90%; GRADE: very low-quality evidence), or for other reported secondary outcomes.The trials did not report the majority of secondary outcomes including those related to long-term health and health service use and costs. We were not able to assess the following outcomes using GRADE: perineal trauma; postnatal depression; maternal type 2 diabetes; neonatal hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood adiposity; type 2 diabetes; and neurosensory disability. High-fibre dietary advice versus standard dietary advice (one trial) The one trial in this comparison reported on two secondary outcomes. No clear difference between the high-fibre and standard dietary advice groups observed for mean blood glucose (following an oral glucose tolerance test at 35 weeks), and birthweight.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low-quality evidence from five trials suggests a possible reduction in GDM risk for women receiving dietary advice versus standard care, and low-quality evidence from four trials suggests no clear difference for women receiving low- versus moderate- to high-GI dietary advice. A possible reduction in pregnancy-induced hypertension for women receiving dietary advice was observed and no clear differences were seen for other reported primary outcomes. There were few outcome data for secondary outcomes.For outcomes assessed using GRADE, evidence was considered to be low to very low quality, with downgrading based on study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision, and inconsistency.More high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effects of dietary advice interventions in pregnancy. Future trials should be designed to monitor adherence, women's views and preferences, and powered to evaluate effects on short- and long-term outcomes; there is a need for such trials to collect and report on core outcomes for GDM research. We have identified five ongoing studies and four are awaiting classification. We will consider these in the next review update.

Interventions for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic Reviews regarding the effects of interventions for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus.

Melatonin for women in pregnancy for neuroprotection of the fetus

BACKGROUND

Melatonin is an antioxidant with anti-inflammatory and anti-apoptotic effects. Animal studies have supported a fetal neuroprotective role for melatonin when administered maternally. It is important to assess whether melatonin, given to the mother, can reduce the risk of neurosensory disabilities (including cerebral palsy) and death, associated with fetal brain injury, for the preterm or term compromised fetus.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of melatonin when used for neuroprotection of the fetus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing melatonin given to women in pregnancy (regardless of the route, timing, dose and duration of administration) for fetal neuroprotection with placebo, no treatment, or with an alternative agent aimed at providing fetal neuroprotection. We also planned to include comparisons of different regimens for administration of melatonin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors planned to independently assess trial eligibility, trial quality and extract the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised trials for inclusion in this review. One study is ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As we did not identify any randomised trials for inclusion in this review, we are unable to comment on implications for practice at this stage.Although evidence from animals studies has supported a fetal neuroprotective role for melatonin when administered to the mother during pregnancy, no trials assessing melatonin for fetal neuroprotection in pregnant women have been completed to date. However, there is currently one ongoing randomised controlled trial (with an estimated enrolment target of 60 pregnant women) which examines the dose of melatonin, administered to women at risk of imminent very preterm birth (less than 28 weeks' gestation) required to reduce brain damage in the white matter of the babies that were born very preterm.Further high-quality research is needed and research efforts should directed towards trials comparing melatonin with either no intervention (no treatment or placebo), or with alternative agents aimed at providing fetal neuroprotection (such as magnesium sulphate for the very preterm infant). Such trials should evaluate maternal and infant short- and longer-term outcomes (including neurosensory disabilities such as cerebral palsy), and consider the costs of care.