Questioning approaches to consent in time critical obstetric trials: findings from a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: Trial legislation enables research to be conducted without prior consent (RWPC) in emergency situations, yet this approach has rarely been used in time-critical obstetric trials. This study explored views and experiences of antenatal recruitment and consent and RWPC in an emergency intrapartum randomised clinical trial. DESIGN: Embedded, mixed-methods study within a trial, involving questionnaires, recorded recruitment discussions, interviews and focus groups in the first 13 months of trial recruitment (December 2020-January 2022). SETTING: COPE is a double-blind randomised controlled trial, comparing the effectiveness of carboprost or oxytocin as first-line treatment of postpartum haemorrhage. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and eighty-six people (190 women/96 birth partners), linked to 198/380 (52%) COPE recruits participated in the embedded study. Of these, 272 completed a questionnaire (178 women/94 birth partners), 22 were interviewed (19 women/3 birth partners) and 16 consent discussions with 12 women were recorded. Twenty-seven staff took part in three focus groups and nine staff were interviewed. RESULTS: Participants recommended that information about the study should be more accessible antenatally for those who wish to be informed. Most women and staff did not think it would be appropriate to seek consent during pregnancy or early labour as it may cause 'unnecessary panic' and lead to research waste, as most women would not become eligible. There was support for the use of RWPC as COPE interventions are used in standard clinical practice and viewed as low risk. Women who were approached about the trial while having a postpartum haemorrhage also supported RWPC as they could not recall research discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the use of RWPC for time-critical interventions, and raise questions about the appropriateness of other commonly used consent pathways, including antenatal consent and verbal assent.

Deferred cord clamping, cord milking, and immediate cord clamping at preterm birth: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Umbilical cord clamping strategies at preterm birth have the potential to affect important health outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of deferred cord clamping, umbilical cord milking, and immediate cord clamping in reducing neonatal mortality and morbidity at preterm birth. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. We searched medical databases and trial registries (from database inception until Feb 24, 2022; updated June 6, 2023) for randomised controlled trials comparing deferred (also known as delayed) cord clamping, cord milking, and immediate cord clamping for preterm births (<37 weeks' gestation). Quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised trials were excluded. Authors of eligible studies were invited to join the iCOMP collaboration and share individual participant data. All data were checked, harmonised, re-coded, and assessed for risk of bias following prespecified criteria. The primary outcome was death before hospital discharge. We performed intention-to-treat one-stage individual participant data meta-analyses accounting for heterogeneity to examine treatment effects overall and in prespecified subgroup analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019136640. FINDINGS: We identified 2369 records, of which 48 randomised trials provided individual participant data and were eligible for our primary analysis. We included individual participant data on 6367 infants (3303 [55%] male, 2667 [45%] female, two intersex, and 395 missing data). Deferred cord clamping, compared with immediate cord clamping, reduced death before discharge (odds ratio [OR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·51-0·91], high-certainty evidence, 20 studies, n=3260, 232 deaths). For umbilical cord milking compared with immediate cord clamping, no clear evidence was found of a difference in death before discharge (OR 0·73 [0·44-1·20], low certainty, 18 studies, n=1561, 74 deaths). Similarly, for umbilical cord milking compared with deferred cord clamping, no clear evidence was found of a difference in death before discharge (0·95 [0·59-1·53], low certainty, 12 studies, n=1303, 93 deaths). We found no evidence of subgroup differences for the primary outcome, including by gestational age, type of delivery, multiple birth, study year, and perinatal mortality. INTERPRETATION: This study provides high-certainty evidence that deferred cord clamping, compared with immediate cord clamping, reduces death before discharge in preterm infants. This effect appears to be consistent across several participant-level and trial-level subgroups. These results will inform international treatment recommendations. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Short, medium, and long deferral of umbilical cord clamping compared with umbilical cord milking and immediate clamping at preterm birth: a systematic review and network meta-analysis with individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Deferred (also known as delayed) cord clamping can improve survival of infants born preterm (before 37 weeks of gestation), but the optimal duration of deferral remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the effectiveness of umbilical cord clamping strategies with different timings of clamping or with cord milking for preterm infants. METHODS: We searched medical databases and trial registries from inception until Feb 24, 2022 (updated June 6, 2023) for randomised controlled trials comparing cord clamping strategies for preterm infants. Individual participant data were harmonised and assessed for risk of bias and quality. Interventions were grouped into immediate clamping, short deferral (≥15 s to <45 s), medium deferral (≥45 s to <120 s), long deferral (≥120 s), and intact cord milking. The primary outcome was death before hospital discharge. We calculated one-stage, intention-to-treat Bayesian random-effects individual participant data network meta-analysis. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019136640. FINDINGS: We included individual participant data from 47 trials with 6094 participants. Of all interventions, long deferral reduced death before discharge the most (compared with immediate clamping; odds ratio 0·31 [95% credibility interval] 0·11-0·80; moderate certainty). The risk of bias was low for 10 (33%) of 30 trials, 14 (47%) had some concerns, and 6 (20%) were rated as having a high risk of bias. Heterogeneity was low, with no indication of inconsistency. INTERPRETATION: This study found that long deferral of clamping leads to reduced odds of death before discharge in preterm infants. In infants assessed as requiring immediate resuscitation, this finding might only be generalisable if there are provisions for such care with the cord intact. These results are based on thoroughly cleaned and checked individual participant data and can inform future guidelines and practice. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Routine vaginal examinations compared to other methods for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term.

BACKGROUND: Routine vaginal examinations are undertaken at regular time intervals during labour to assess whether labour is progressing as expected. Unusually slow progress can be due to underlying problems, described as labour dystocia, or can be a normal variation of progress. Evidence suggests that if mother and baby are well, length of labour alone should not be used to decide whether labour is progressing normally. Other methods to assess labour progress include intrapartum ultrasound and monitoring external physical and behavioural cues. Vaginal examinations can be distressing for women, and overdiagnosis of dystocia can result in iatrogenic morbidity due to unnecessary intervention. It is important to establish whether routine vaginal examinations are effective, both as an accurate measure of physiological labour progress and to distinguish true labour dystocia, or whether other methods for assessing labour progress are more effective. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness, acceptability, and consequences of routine vaginal examinations compared with other methods, or different timings, to assess labour progress at term. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and conference proceedings) and ClinicalTrials.gov (28 February 2021). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vaginal examinations compared with other methods of assessing labour progress and studies assessing different timings of vaginal examinations. Quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion. We excluded cross-over trials and conference abstracts. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all studies identified by the search for inclusion in the review. Four review authors independently extracted data. Two review authors assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies that randomised a total of 755 women, with data analysed for 744 women and their babies. Interventions used to assess labour progress were routine vaginal examinations, routine ultrasound assessments, routine rectal examinations, routine vaginal examinations at different frequencies, and vaginal examinations as indicated. We were unable to conduct meta-analysis as there was only one study for each comparison.  All studies were at high risk of performance bias due to difficulties with blinding. We assessed two studies as high risk of bias and two as low or unclear risk of bias for other domains. The overall certainty of the evidence assessed using GRADE was low or very low.  Routine vaginal examinations versus routine ultrasound to assess labour progress (one study, 83 women and babies) Study in Turkey involving multiparous women with spontaneous onset of labour. Routine vaginal examinations may result in a slight increase in pain compared to routine ultrasound (mean difference -1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.10 to -0.48; one study, 83 women, low certainty evidence) (pain measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) in reverse: zero indicating 'worst pain', 10 indicating no pain). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes: positive birth experience; augmentation of labour; spontaneous vaginal birth; chorioamnionitis; neonatal infection; admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Routine vaginal examinations versus routine rectal examinations to assess labour progress (one study, 307 women and babies) Study in Ireland involving women in labour at term. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low. Compared with routine rectal examinations, routine vaginal examinations may have little or no effect on: augmentation of labour (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.68; one study, 307 women); and spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; one study, 307 women). We found insufficient data to fully assess: neonatal infections (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.07; one study, 307 babies); and admission to NICU (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.73; one study, 307 babies). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes: positive birth experience; chorioamnionitis; maternal pain. Routine four-hourly vaginal examinations versus routine two-hourly examinations (one study, 150 women and babies) UK study involving primiparous women in labour at term. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low. Compared with routine two-hourly vaginal examinations, routine four-hourly vaginal examinations may have little or no effect, with data compatible with both benefit and harm, on: augmentation of labour (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.57; one study, 109 women); and spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.26; one study, 150 women). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes: positive birth experience; chorioamnionitis; neonatal infection; admission to NICU; maternal pain. Routine vaginal examinations versus vaginal examinations as indicated (one study, 204 women and babies)  Study in Malaysia involving primiparous women being induced at term. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. Compared with vaginal examinations as indicated, routine four-hourly vaginal examinations may result in more women having their labour augmented (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.31; one study, 204 women). There may be little or no effect on: • spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.59; one study, 204 women); • chorioamnionitis (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.21; one study, 204 women); • neonatal infection (RR 4.08, 95% CI 0.46 to 35.87; one study, 204 babies); • admission to NICU (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.56; one study, 204 babies). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes of positive birth experience or maternal pain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, we cannot be certain which method is most effective or acceptable for assessing labour progress. Further large-scale RCT trials are required. These should include essential clinical and experiential outcomes. This may be facilitated through the development of a tool to measure positive birth experiences. Data from qualitative studies are also needed to fully assess whether methods to evaluate labour progress meet women's needs for a safe and positive labour and birth, and if not, to develop an approach that does.

Paracetamol/acetaminophen (single administration) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period.

BACKGROUND: Perineal pain is a common but poorly studied adverse outcome following childbirth. Pain may result from perineal trauma due to bruising, spontaneous tears, surgical incisions (episiotomies), or in association with operative vaginal births (ventouse or forceps-assisted births). This is an update of a review last published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of a single administration of paracetamol (acetaminophen) used in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (9 December 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, comparing paracetamol to placebo. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. Data from abstracts would be included only if authors had confirmed in writing that the data to be included in the review had come from the final analysis and would not change. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed each study for inclusion and extracted data. One review author reviewed the decisions and confirmed calculations for pain relief scores. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This update identified no new trials so the results remain unchanged. However, by applying the GRADE assessment of the evidence, the interpretation of main results differed from previous version of this review. We identified 10 studies involving 2044 women, but all these studies involved either three or four groups, looking at differing drugs or doses. We have only included the 1301 women who were in the paracetamol versus placebo arms of the studies. Of these, five studies (482 women) assessed 500 mg to 650 mg and six studies (797 women) assessed 1000 mg of paracetamol. One study assessed 650 mg and 1000 mg compared with placebo and contributed to both comparisons. We used a random-effects meta-analysis because of the clinical variability among studies. Studies were from the 1970s to the early 1990s, and there was insufficient information to assess the risk of bias adequately, hence the findings need to be interpreted within this context. The certainty of the evidence for the two primary outcomes on which data were available was assessed as low, downgraded for overall unclear risk of bias and for heterogeneity (I² statistic 60% or greater). More women may experience pain relief with paracetamol compared with placebo (average risk ratio (RR) 2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.89; 10 trials, 1279 women), and fewer women may need additional pain relief with paracetamol compared with placebo (average RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55; 8 trials, 1132 women). However, the certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded for unclear overall risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity. One study used the higher dose of paracetamol (1000 mg) and reported maternal drug adverse effects. There may be little or no difference in the incidence of nausea (average RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.66; 1 trial, 232 women; low-certainty evidence), or sleepiness (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.30; 1 trial, 232 women; low-certainty evidence). No other maternal adverse events were reported. None of the studies assessed neonatal drug adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of paracetamol may improve perineal pain relief following vaginal birth, and may reduce the need for additional pain relief. Potential adverse effects for both women and neonates were not appropriately assessed. Any further trials should also address the gaps in evidence concerning maternal outcomes such as satisfaction with postnatal care, maternal functioning/well-being (emotional attachment, self-efficacy, competence, autonomy, confidence, self-care, coping skills) and neonatal drug adverse effects.

Interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms which are experienced commonly during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and in the postoperative period.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no intervention given prophylactically to prevent nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. 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) (16 April 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of studies and conference abstracts, and excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Our primary outcomes are intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Data entry was checked. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-four studies (involving 10,990 women) met our inclusion criteria. Sixty-nine studies, involving 8928 women, contributed data. Most studies involved women undergoing elective caesarean section. Many studies were small with unclear risk of bias and sometimes few events. The overall certainty of the evidence assessed using GRADE was moderate to very low. 5-HT3 antagonists: We found intraoperative nausea may be reduced by 5-HT3 antagonists (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.71, 12 studies, 1419 women, low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in intraoperative vomiting but the evidence is very uncertain (aRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73, 11 studies, 1414 women, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in postoperative nausea (aRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.54, 10 studies, 1340 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and these drugs may show a reduction in postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69, 10 studies, 1450 women, low-certainty evidence). Dopamine antagonists: We found dopamine antagonists may reduce intraoperative nausea but the evidence is very uncertain (aRR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.52, 15 studies, 1180 women, very low-certainty evidence). Dopamine antagonists may reduce intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.60, 12 studies, 942 women, low-certainty evidence) and postoperative nausea (aRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79, 7 studies, 601 women, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if dopamine antagonists reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.92, 9 studies, 860 women, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids (steroids): We are uncertain if intraoperative nausea is reduced by corticosteroids (aRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83, 6 studies, 609 women, very low-certainty evidence) similarly for intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87, 6 studies, 609 women, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids probably reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.73, 6 studies, 733 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.95, 7 studies, 793 women, low-certainty evidence). Antihistamines: Antihistamines may have little to no effect on intraoperative nausea (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.11, 1 study, 149 women, very low-certainty evidence) or intraoperative vomiting (no events in the one study of 149 women). Antihistamines may reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64, 4 studies, 514 women, low-certainty evidence), however, we are uncertain whether antihistamines reduce postoperative vomiting (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.81, 3 studies, 333 women, very low-certainty evidence). Anticholinergics: Anticholinergics may reduce intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87, 4 studies, 453 women, low-certainty evidence) but may have little to no effect on intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.54, 4 studies; 453 women, very low-certainty evidence). No studies looked at anticholinergics in postoperative nausea, but they may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74, 1 study, 161 women, low-certainty evidence). Sedatives: We found that sedatives probably reduce intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82, 8 studies, 593 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52, 8 studies, 593 women, moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain whether sedatives reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71, 2 studies, 145 women, very low-certainty evidence) and they may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28, 2 studies, 145 women, low-certainty evidence). Opioid antagonists: There were no studies assessing intraoperative nausea or vomiting. Opioid antagonists may result in little or no difference to the number of women having postoperative nausea (aRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.45, 1 study, 120 women, low-certainty evidence) or postoperative vomiting (aRR 1.25, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.43, 1 study, 120 women, low-certainty evidence). Acupressure: It is uncertain whether acupressure/acupuncture reduces intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74, 9 studies, 1221 women, very low-certainty evidence). Acupressure may reduce intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.80, 9 studies, 1221 women, low-certainty evidence) but it is uncertain whether it reduces postoperative nausea (aRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75, 7 studies, 1069 women, very low-certainty evidence) or postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79, 7 studies, 1069 women, very low-certainty evidence). Ginger: It is uncertain whether ginger makes any difference to the number of women having intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.21, 2 studies, 331 women, very low-certainty evidence), intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.00, 2 studies, 331 women, very low-certainty evidence), postoperative nausea (aRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.77, 1 study, 92 women, very low-certainty evidence) and postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.65, 1 study, 92 women, very low-certainty evidence). Few studies assessed our secondary outcomes including adverse effects or women's views. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that 5-HT3 antagonists, dopamine antagonists, corticosteroids, sedatives and acupressure probably or possibly have efficacy in reducing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. However the certainty of evidence varied widely and was generally low. Future research is needed to assess side effects of treatment, women's views and to compare the efficacy of combinations of different medications.

Different classes of antibiotics given to women routinely for preventing infection at caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean section increases the risk of postpartum infection for women and prophylactic antibiotics have been shown to reduce the incidence; however, there are adverse effects. It is important to identify the most effective class of antibiotics to use and those with the least adverse effects.  OBJECTIVES: To determine, from the best available evidence, the balance of benefits and harms between different classes of antibiotic given prophylactically to women undergoing caesarean section, considering their effectiveness in reducing infectious complications for women and adverse effects on both mother and infant. SEARCH METHODS: For this 2020 update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (2 December 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different classes of prophylactic antibiotics given to women undergoing caesarean section.  RCTs published in abstract form were also included. We excluded trials that compared drugs with placebo or drugs within a specific class; these are assessed in other Cochrane Reviews. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 studies, with 33 providing data (8073 women). Thirty-two studies (7690 women) contributing data administered antibiotics systemically, while one study (383 women) used lavage and was analysed separately. We identified three main comparisons that addressed clinically important questions on antibiotics at caesarean section (all systemic administration), but we only found studies for one comparison, 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors'.   We found no studies for the following comparisons: 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus lincosamides' and 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus lincosamides plus aminoglycosides'. Twenty-seven studies (22 provided data) included comparisons of cephalosporins (only) versus penicillins (only). However for this update, we only pooled data relating to different sub-classes of penicillins and cephalosporins where they are known to have similar spectra of action against agents likely to cause infection at caesarean section. Eight trials, providing data on 1540 women, reported on our main comparison, 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors'. We found data on four other comparisons of cephalosporins (only) versus penicillins (only) using systemic administration: antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus non-antistaphylococcal penicillins (natural and broad spectrum) (9 studies, 3093 women); minimally antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (3rd generation) versus non-antistaphylococcal penicillins (natural and broad spectrum) (4 studies, 854 women); minimally antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (3rd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors (2 studies, 865 women); and minimally antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (3rd generation) versus broad spectrum and antistaphylococcal penicillins (1 study, 200 women). For other comparisons of different classes of antibiotics, only a small number of trials provided data for each comparison, and in all but one case data were not pooled. For all comparisons, there was a lack of good quality data and important outcomes often included few women. Three of the studies that contributed data were undertaken with drug company funding, one was funded by the hospital, and for all other studies the funding source was not reported. Most of the studies were at unclear risk of selection bias, reporting bias and other biases, partly due to the inclusion of many older trials where trial reports did not provide sufficient methodological information. We undertook GRADE assessment on the only main comparison reported by the included studies, antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors, and the certainty ranged from low to very low, mostly due to concerns about risk of bias, wide confidence intervals (CI), and few events. In terms of the primary outcomes for our main comparison of 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors': only one small study reported sepsis, and there were too few events to identify clear differences between the drugs (risk ratio (RR) 2.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 56.41, 1 study, 75 women, very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between these antibiotics in preventing endometritis (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.60, 7 studies, 1161 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on infant sepsis or infant oral thrush. For our secondary outcomes, we found there may be little or no difference between interventions for maternal fever (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.75, 3 studies, 678 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects on maternal: wound infection (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.90, 4 studies, 543 women), urinary tract infection (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.73, 4 studies, 496 women), composite adverse effects (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.09 to 10.50, 2 studies, 468 women), and skin rash (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.1, 3 studies, 591 women) (all very low certainty evidence). Although maternal allergic reactions were reported by two studies, there were no events. There were no infant outcomes reported in the included studies. For the other comparisons, the results for most outcomes had wide CIs, few studies and few women included. None of the included trials reported on longer-term maternal outcomes, or on any infant outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the best currently available evidence, 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins' and 'broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors' may have similar efficacy at caesarean section when considering immediate postoperative infection, although we did not have clear evidence for several important outcomes. Most trials administered antibiotics at or after cord clamping, or post-operatively, so results may have limited applicability to current practice which generally favours administration prior to skin incision. We have no data on any infant outcomes, nor on late infections (up to 30 days) in the mother; these are important gaps in the evidence that warrant further research. Antimicrobial resistance is very important but more appropriately investigated by other trial designs.

Umbilical Cord Management for Newborns <34 Weeks' Gestation: A Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation prioritized scientific review of umbilical cord management strategies at preterm birth. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of umbilical cord management strategies (including timing of cord clamping and cord milking) in preterm infants <34 weeks' gestation. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and trial registries were searched through July 2019 for randomized controlled trials assessing timing of cord clamping and/or cord milking. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, appraised risk of bias, and assessed evidence certainty (GRADE). DATA EXTRACTION: We identified 42 randomized controlled trials (including 5772 infants) investigating 4 different comparisons of cord management interventions. RESULTS: Compared to early cord clamping, delayed cord clamping (DCC) and intact-cord milking (ICM) may slightly improve survival; however, both are compatible with no effect (DCC: risk ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.04, n = 2988 infants, moderate certainty evidence; ICM: risk ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.98 to 1.06, n = 945 infants, moderate certainty evidence). DCC and ICM both probably improve hematologic measures but may not affect major neonatal morbidities. LIMITATIONS: For many of the included comparisons and outcomes, certainty of evidence was low. Our subgroup analyses were limited by few researchers reporting subgroup data. CONCLUSIONS: DCC appears to be associated with some benefit for infants born <34 weeks. Cord milking needs further evidence to determine potential benefits or harms. The ideal cord management strategy for preterm infants is still unknown, but early clamping may be harmful.

Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The setting in which induction of labour takes place (home or inpatient) is likely to have implications for safety, women's experiences and costs. Home induction may be started at home with the subsequent active phase of labour happening either at home or in a healthcare facility (hospital, birth centre, midwifery-led unit). More commonly, home induction starts in a healthcare facility, then the woman goes home to await the start of labour. Inpatient induction takes place in a healthcare facility where the woman stays while awaiting the start of labour. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on neonatal and maternal outcomes of third trimester home induction of labour compared with inpatient induction using the same method of induction. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 January 2020)), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which home and inpatient settings for induction have been compared. We included conference abstracts but excluded quasi-randomised trials and cross-over studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study reports for inclusion. Two review authors carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently. GRADE assessments were checked by a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs, six of which provided data on 1610 women and their babies. Studies were undertaken between 1998 and 2015, and all were in high- or upper-middle income countries. Most women were induced for post dates. Three studies reported government funding, one reported no funding and three did not report on their funding source. Most GRADE assessments gave very low-certainty evidence, downgrading mostly for high risk of bias and serious imprecision. 1. Home compared to inpatient induction with vaginal prostaglandin E (PGE) (two RCTs, 1028 women and babies; 1022 providing data). Although women's satisfaction may be slightly better in home settings, the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.34, 1 study, 399 women), very low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no difference between home and inpatient induction for other primary outcomes, with all evidence being very low certainty: - spontaneous vaginal birth (average risk ratio (RR) [aRR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21, 2 studies, 1022 women, random-effects method); - uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.50, 1 study, 821 women); - caesarean birth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28, 2 studies, 1022 women); - neonatal infection (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.82, 1 study, 821 babies); - admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.90, 2 studies, 1022 babies). Studies did not report serious neonatal morbidity or mortality. 2. Home compared to inpatient induction with controlled release PGE (one RCT, 299 women and babies providing data). There was no information on whether the questionnaire on women's satisfaction with care used a validated instrument, but the findings presented showed no overall difference in scores. We found little or no difference between the groups for other primary outcomes, all also being very low-certainty evidence: - spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.14, 1 study, 299 women); - uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.98, 1 study, 299 women); - caesarean births (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.42, 1 study, 299 women); - admission to NICU (RR 1.38, 0.57 to 3.34, 1 study, 299 babies). The study did not report on neonatal infection nor serious neonatal morbidity or mortality. 3. Home compared to inpatient induction with balloon or Foley catheter (four RCTs; three studies, 289 women and babies providing data). It was again unclear whether questionnaires reporting women's experiences/satisfaction with care were validated instruments, with one study (48 women, 69% response rate) finding women were similarly satisfied. Home inductions may reduce the number of caesarean births, but the data are also compatible with a slight increase and are of very low-certainty (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.01, 2 studies, 159 women). There was little or no difference between the groups for other primary outcomes with all being very low-certainty evidence: - spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.98, 1 study, 48 women): - uterine hyperstimulation (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.03 to 6.79, 1 study, 48 women); - admission to NICU (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.86, 2 studies, 159 babies). There were no serious neonatal infections nor serious neonatal morbidity or mortality in the one study (involving 48 babies) assessing these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Data on the effectiveness, safety and women's experiences of home versus inpatient induction of labour are limited and of very low-certainty. Given that serious adverse events are likely to be extremely rare, the safety data are more likely to come from very large observational cohort studies rather than relatively small RCTs.

Membrane sweeping for induction of labour.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour involves stimulating uterine contractions artificially to promote the onset of labour. There are several pharmacological, surgical and mechanical methods used to induce labour. Membrane sweeping is a mechanical technique whereby a clinician inserts one or two fingers into the cervix and using a continuous circular sweeping motion detaches the inferior pole of the membranes from the lower uterine segment. This produces hormones that encourage effacement and dilatation potentially promoting labour. This review is an update to a review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and safety of membrane sweeping for induction of labour in women at or near term (≥ 36 weeks' gestation). SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (25 February 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (25 February 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing membrane sweeping used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed on a predefined list of labour induction methods. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible, but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, or by including a third review author. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 studies (20 new to this update), reporting data for 6940 women and their infants. We used random-effects throughout. Overall, the risk of bias was assessed as low or unclear risk in most domains across studies. Evidence certainty, assessed using GRADE, was found to be generally low, mainly due to study design, inconsistency and imprecision. Six studies (n = 1284) compared membrane sweeping with more than one intervention and were thus included in more than one comparison. No trials reported on the outcomes uterine hyperstimulation with/without fetal heart rate (FHR) change, uterine rupture or neonatal encephalopathy. Forty studies (6548 participants) compared membrane sweeping with no treatment/sham Women randomised to membrane sweeping may be more likely to experience: · spontaneous onset of labour (average risk ratio (aRR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.34, 17 studies, 3170 participants, low-certainty evidence). but less likely to experience: · induction (aRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.94, 16 studies, 3224 participants, low-certainty evidence); There may be little to no difference between groups for: · caesareans (aRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04, 32 studies, 5499 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); · spontaneous vaginal birth (aRR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.07, 26 studies, 4538 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); · maternal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.20, 17 studies, 2749 participants, low-certainty evidence); · neonatal perinatal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.17, 18 studies, 3696 participants, low-certainty evidence). Four studies reported data for 480 women comparing membrane sweeping with vaginal/intracervical prostaglandins There may be little to no difference between groups for the outcomes: · spontaneous onset of labour (aRR, 1.24, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.57, 3 studies, 339 participants, low-certainty evidence); · induction (aRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.45, 2 studies, 157 participants, low-certainty evidence); · caesarean (aRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09, 3 studies, 339 participants, low-certainty evidence); · spontaneous vaginal birth (aRR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.32, 2 studies, 252 participants, low-certainty evidence); · maternal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.21, 1 study, 87 participants, low-certainty evidence); · neonatal perinatal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.33, 2 studies, 269 participants, low-certainty evidence). One study, reported data for 104 women, comparing membrane sweeping with intravenous oxytocin +/- amniotomy There may be little to no difference between groups for: · spontaneous onset of labour (aRR 1.32, 95% CI 88 to 1.96, 1 study, 69 participants, low-certainty evidence); · induction (aRR 0.51, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.42, 1 study, 69 participants, low-certainty evidence); · caesarean (aRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.85, 1 study, 69 participants, low-certainty evidence); · maternal death or serious morbidity was reported on, but there were no events. Two studies providing data for 160 women compared membrane sweeping with vaginal/oral misoprostol There may be little to no difference between groups for: · caesareans (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.17, 1 study, 96 participants, low-certainty evidence). One study providing data for 355 women which compared once weekly membrane sweep with twice-weekly membrane sweep and a sham procedure There may be little to no difference between groups for: · induction (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.85, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty); · caesareans (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.46, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty evidence); · spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.17, 1 study, 234 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); · maternal death or serious maternal morbidity (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.02, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty evidence); · neonatal death or serious neonatal perinatal morbidity (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.76, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty evidence); We found no studies that compared membrane sweeping with amniotomy only or mechanical methods. Three studies, providing data for 675 women, reported that women indicated favourably on their experience of membrane sweeping with one study reporting that 88% (n = 312) of women questioned in the postnatal period would choose membrane sweeping in the next pregnancy. Two studies reporting data for 290 women reported that membrane sweeping is more cost-effective than using prostaglandins, although more research should be undertaken in this area. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Membrane sweeping may be effective in achieving a spontaneous onset of labour, but the evidence for this was of low certainty. When compared to expectant management, it potentially reduces the incidence of formal induction of labour. Questions remain as to whether there is an optimal number of membrane sweeps and timings and gestation of these to facilitate induction of labour.

Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping and other strategies to influence placental transfusion at preterm birth on maternal and infant outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Infants born preterm (before 37 weeks' gestation) have poorer outcomes than infants at term, particularly if born before 32 weeks. Early cord clamping has been standard practice over many years, and enables quick transfer of the infant to neonatal care. Delayed clamping allows blood flow between the placenta, umbilical cord and baby to continue, and may aid transition. Keeping baby at the mother's side enables neonatal care with the cord intact and this, along with delayed clamping, may improve outcomes. Umbilical cord milking (UCM) is proposed for increasing placental transfusion when immediate care for the preterm baby is needed. This Cochrane Review is a further update of a review first published in 2004 and updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on infants born at less than 37 weeks' gestation, and their mothers of: 1) delayed cord clamping (DCC) compared with early cord clamping (ECC) both with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping; 2) DCC with immediate neonatal care with cord intact compared with ECC with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping; 3) DCC with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping compared with UCM; 4) UCM compared with ECC with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (10 November 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search in November 2018 and added nine new trial reports to the awaiting classification section to be assessed at the next update. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing delayed with early clamping of the umbilical cord (with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping or with cord intact) and UCM for births before 37 weeks' gestation. Quasi-RCTs were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Random-effects are used in all meta-analyses. Review authors assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes forty-eight studies, involving 5721 babies and their mothers, with data available from 40 studies involving 4884 babies and their mothers. Babies were between 24 and 36+6 weeks' gestation at birth and multiple births were included. The data are mostly from high-income countries. Delayed clamping ranged between 30 to 180 seconds, with most studies delaying for 30 to 60 seconds. Early clamping was less than 30 seconds and often immediate. UCM was mostly before cord clamping but some were milked after cord clamping. We undertook subgroup analysis by gestation and type of intervention, and sensitivity analyses by low risk of selection and attrition bias.All studies were high risk for performance bias and many were unclear for other aspects of risk of bias. Certainty of the evidence using GRADE was mostly low, mainly due to imprecision and unclear risk of bias.Delayed cord clamping (DCC) versus early cord clamping (ECC) both with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping (25 studies, 3100 babies and their mothers)DCC probably reduces the number of babies who die before discharge compared with ECC (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.98, 20 studies, 2680 babies (moderate certainty)).No studies reported on 'Death or neurodevelopmental impairment' in the early years'.DCC may make little or no difference to the number of babies with severe intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH grades 3 and 4) (aRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.39, 10 studies, 2058 babies, low certainty) but slightly reduces the number of babies with any grade IVH (aRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99, 15 studies, 2333 babies, high certainty).DCC has little or no effect on chronic lung disease (CLD) (aRR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.14, 6 studies, 1644 babies, high certainty).Due to insufficient data, we were unable to form conclusions regarding periventricular leukomalacia (PVL) (aRR 0.58, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.30, 4 studies, 1544 babies, low certainty) or maternal blood loss of 500 mL or greater (aRR 1.14, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.63, 2 studies, 180 women, very low certainty).We identified no important heterogeneity in subgroup or sensitivity analyses.Delayed cord clamping (DCC) with immediate neonatal care with cord intact versus early cord clamping (ECC) (one study, 276 babies and their mothers)There are insufficient data to be confident in our findings, but DCC with immediate neonatal care with cord intact may reduce the number of babies who die before discharge, although the data are also compatible with a slight increase in mortality, compared with ECC (aRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.11, 1 study, 270 babies, low certainty). DCC may also reduce the number of babies who die or have neurodevelopmental impairment in early years (aRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96, 1 study, 218 babies, low certainty). There may be little or no difference in: severe IVH; all grades IVH; PVL; CLD; maternal blood loss ≥ 500 mL, assessed as low certainty mainly due to serious imprecision.Delayed cord clamping (DCC) with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping versus umbilical cord milking (UCM) (three studies, 322 babies and their mothers) and UCM versus early cord clamping (ECC) (11 studies, 1183 babies and their mothers)There are insufficient data for reliable conclusions about the comparative effects of UCM compared with delayed or early clamping (mostly low or very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Delayed, rather than early, cord clamping may reduce the risk of death before discharge for babies born preterm. There is insufficient evidence to show what duration of delay is best, one or several minutes, and therefore the optimum time to clamp the umbilical cord remains unclear. Whilst the current evidence supports not clamping the cord before 30 seconds at preterm births, future trials could compare different lengths of delay. Immediate neonatal care with the cord intact requires further study, and there are insufficient data on UCM.The nine new reports awaiting further classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

Uterotonic drugs to prevent postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic drugs can reduce blood loss and are routinely recommended. There are several uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH, but it is still debatable which drug or combination of drugs is the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective and cost-effective uterotonic drug(s) to prevent PPH, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side-effect profile. METHODS: The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (1 June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO)'s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched for unpublished trial reports (30 June 2015). In addition, reference lists of retrieved studies (updated October 2017) were searched for randomised trials evaluating uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH. The study estimated relative effects and rankings for preventing PPH, defined as blood loss of ≥ 500 ml and ≥ 1000 ml. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis were performed to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available drugs and combinations thereof [ergometrine, misoprostol (Cytotec®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA), misoprostol plus oxytocin (Syntocinon®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), carbetocin (Pabal®; Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Saint-Prex, Switzerland), ergometrine plus oxytocin (Syntometrine®; Alliance Pharma plc, Chippenham, UK), oxytocin, and a placebo or no treatment]. Primary outcomes were stratified according to the mode of birth, prior risk of PPH, health-care setting, drug dosage, regimen and route of drug administration. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to study quality and funding source, among others. A model-based economic evaluation compared the relative cost-effectiveness separately for vaginal births and caesareans with or without including side effects. RESULTS: From 137 randomised trials and 87,466 women, ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin were found to reduce the risk of PPH blood loss of ≥ 500 ml compared with the standard drug, oxytocin [ergometrine plus oxytocin: risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.83; carbetocin: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00; misoprostol plus oxytocin: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9]. Each of these three strategies had 100% cumulative probability of being ranked first, second or third most effective. Oxytocin was ranked fourth, with an almost 0% cumulative probability of being ranked in the top three. Similar rankings were noted for the reduction of PPH blood loss of ≥ 1000 ml (ergometrine plus oxytocin: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95; carbetocin: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.28; misoprostol plus oxytocin: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.14), and most secondary outcomes. Ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin had the poorest ranking for side effects. Carbetocin had a favourable side-effect profile, which was similar to oxytocin. However, the analysis was restricted to high-quality studies, carbetocin lost its ranking and was comparable to oxytocin. The relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative strategies is inconclusive, and the results are affected by both the uncertainty and inconsistency in the data reported on adverse events. For vaginal delivery, when assuming no adverse events, ergometrine plus oxytocin is less costly and more effective than all strategies except carbetocin. The strategy of carbetocin is both more effective and more costly than all other strategies. When taking adverse events into consideration, all prevention strategies, except oxytocin, are more costly and less effective than carbetocin. For delivery by caesarean section, with and without adverse events, the relative cost-effectiveness is different, again because of the uncertainty in the available data. LIMITATIONS: There was considerable uncertainty in findings within the planned subgroup analyses, and subgroup effects cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS: Ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin are more effective uterotonic drug strategies for preventing PPH than the current standard, oxytocin. Ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin cause significant side effects. Carbetocin has a favourable side-effect profile, which was similar to oxytocin. However, most carbetocin trials are small and of poor quality. There is a need for a large high-quality trial comparing carbetocin with oxytocin; such a trial is currently being conducted by the WHO. The relative cost-effectiveness is inconclusive, and results are affected by uncertainty and inconsistency in adverse events data. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020005; Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group (substudy) reference number 0871; PROSPERO-Cochrane (substudy) reference number CRD42015026568; and sponsor reference number ERN_13-1414 (University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK). FUNDING: Funding for this study was provided by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme in a research award to the University of Birmingham and supported by the UK charity Ammalife (UK-registered charity 1120236). The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data synthesis, interpretation or writing of the report.

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the most common reason why mothers die in childbirth worldwide. Although most healthy women can cope well with blood loss after birth, some do not, and this can pose a serious risk to their health and even life. To reduce blood loss after birth, the routine administration of a drug to contract the uterus (uterotonic) has become standard practice across the world. This research seeks to identify which is the most effective and cost-effective drug. Different drugs have been used for reducing the occurrence of PPH. They include oxytocin, misoprostol, ergometrine, carbetocin, and combinations of these drugs, each with different effectiveness and side effects. The study synthesised the available evidence to compare all of these drugs and combinations thereof. After putting the results of all available comparisons together in a network, a ranking among them was calculated, and provided robust effectiveness and side-effect profiles for each drug and their associated costs. The study included 137 randomised trials, involving a total of 87,466 women. The results suggested that ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin are the most effective strategies for preventing PPH and are more effective than the currently recommended drug, oxytocin. Each of these three strategies had almost 100% probability of being ranked first, second or third most effective. Oxytocin was ranked fourth with an almost 0% probability of being ranked in the top three. Ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin were the worst drug combinations for side effects, with carbetocin having the most favourable side-effect profile. Carbetocin could prevent approximately one further event of PPH out of three in comparison with oxytocin. However, existing carbetocin studies were small and of poor quality. There is need for a large high-quality study comparing carbetocin with the current standard treatment of oxytocin for the prevention of PPH. The cost analyses of the alternative drug strategies remain inconclusive.

Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour.

BACKGROUND: Active management of the third stage of labour involves giving a prophylactic uterotonic, early cord clamping and controlled cord traction to deliver the placenta. With expectant management, signs of placental separation are awaited and the placenta is delivered spontaneously. Active management was introduced to try to reduce haemorrhage, a major contributor to maternal mortality in low-income countries. This is an update of a review last published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of active versus expectant management of the third stage of labour on severe primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) and other maternal and infant outcomes.To compare the effects of variations in the packages of active and expectant management of the third stage of labour on severe primary PPH and other maternal and infant outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), on 22 January 2018, and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing active versus expectant management of the third stage of labour. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, carried out data extraction and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies, involving analysis of data from 8892 women. The studies were all undertaken in hospitals, seven in higher-income countries and one in a lower-income country. Four studies compared active versus expectant management, and four compared active versus a mixture of managements. We used a random-effects model in the analyses because of clinical heterogeneity. Of the eight studies included, we considered three studies as having low risk of bias in the main aspects of sequence generation, allocation concealment and completeness of data collection. There was an absence of high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments for our primary outcomes, which is reflected in the cautious language below.The evidence suggested that, for women at mixed levels of risk of bleeding, it is uncertain whether active management reduces the average risk of maternal severe primary PPH (more than 1000 mL) at time of birth (average risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.87, 3 studies, 4636 women, I2 = 60%; GRADE: very low quality). For incidence of maternal haemoglobin (Hb) less than 9 g/dL following birth, active management of the third stage may reduce the number of women with anaemia after birth (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, 2 studies, 1572 women; GRADE: low quality). We also found that active management of the third stage may make little or no difference to the number of babies admitted to neonatal units (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11, 2 studies, 3207 infants; GRADE: low quality). It is uncertain whether active management of the third stage reduces the number of babies with jaundice requiring treatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.68, 2 studies, 3142 infants, I2 = 66%; GRADE: very low quality). There were no data on our other primary outcomes of very severe PPH at the time of birth (more than 2500 mL), maternal mortality, or neonatal polycythaemia needing treatment.Active management reduces mean maternal blood loss at birth and probably reduces the rate of primary blood loss greater than 500 mL, and the use of therapeutic uterotonics. Active management also probably reduces the mean birthweight of the baby, reflecting the lower blood volume from interference with placental transfusion. In addition, it may reduce the need for maternal blood transfusion. However, active management may increase maternal diastolic blood pressure, vomiting after birth, afterpains, use of analgesia from birth up to discharge from the labour ward, and more women returning to hospital with bleeding (outcome not pre-specified).In the comparison of women at low risk of excessive bleeding, there were similar findings, except it was uncertain whether there was a difference identified between groups for severe primary PPH (average RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.17; 2 studies, 2941 women, I2 = 71%), maternal Hb less than 9 g/dL at 24 to 72 hours (average RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.47; 1 study, 193 women) or the need for neonatal admission (average RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.88; 1 study, 1512 women). In this group, active management may make little difference to the rate of neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy (average RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.18; 1 study, 1447 women).Hypertension and interference with placental transfusion might be avoided by using modifications to the active management package, for example, omitting ergot and deferring cord clamping, but we have no direct evidence of this here. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the data appeared to show that active management reduced the risk of severe primary PPH greater than 1000 mL at the time of birth, we are uncertain of this finding because of the very low-quality evidence. Active management may reduce the incidence of maternal anaemia (Hb less than 9 g/dL) following birth, but harms such as postnatal hypertension, pain and return to hospital due to bleeding were identified.In women at low risk of excessive bleeding, it is uncertain whether there was a difference between active and expectant management for severe PPH or maternal Hb less than 9 g/dL (at 24 to 72 hours). Women could be given information on the benefits and harms of both methods to support informed choice. Given the concerns about early cord clamping and the potential adverse effects of some uterotonics, it is critical now to look at the individual components of third-stage management. Data are also required from low-income countries.It must be emphasised that this review includes only a small number of studies with relatively small numbers of participants, and the quality of evidence for primary outcomes is low or very low.

Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour.

BACKGROUND: Cardiotocography (CTG) records changes in the fetal heart rate and their temporal relationship to uterine contractions. The aim is to identify babies who may be short of oxygen (hypoxic) to guide additional assessments of fetal wellbeing, or determine if the baby needs to be delivered by caesarean section or instrumental vaginal birth. This is an update of a review previously published in 2013, 2006 and 2001. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of continuous cardiotocography when used as a method to monitor fetal wellbeing during labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of continuous cardiotocography (with and without fetal blood sampling) with no fetal monitoring, intermittent auscultation intermittent cardiotocography. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, quality and extracted data from included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 trials involving over 37,000 women. No new studies were included in this update.One trial (4044 women) compared continuous CTG with intermittent CTG, all other trials compared continuous CTG with intermittent auscultation. No data were found comparing no fetal monitoring with continuous CTG. Overall, methodological quality was mixed. All included studies were at high risk of performance bias, unclear or high risk of detection bias, and unclear risk of reporting bias. Only two trials were assessed at high methodological quality.Compared with intermittent auscultation, continuous cardiotocography showed no significant improvement in overall perinatal death rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.23, N = 33,513, 11 trials, low quality evidence), but was associated with halving neonatal seizure rates (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80, N = 32,386, 9 trials, moderate quality evidence). There was no difference in cerebral palsy rates (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.63, N = 13,252, 2 trials, low quality evidence). There was an increase in caesarean sections associated with continuous CTG (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.07, N = 18,861, 11 trials, low quality evidence). Women were also more likely to have instrumental vaginal births (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.33, N = 18,615, 10 trials, low quality evidence). There was no difference in the incidence of cord blood acidosis (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.11, N = 2494, 2 trials, very low quality evidence) or use of any pharmacological analgesia (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09, N = 1677, 3 trials, low quality evidence).Compared with intermittent CTG, continuous CTG made no difference to caesarean section rates (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.97, N = 4044, 1 trial) or instrumental births (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.46, N = 4044, 1 trial). Less cord blood acidosis was observed in women who had intermittent CTG, however, this result could have been due to chance (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.14, N = 4044, 1 trial).Data for low risk, high risk, preterm pregnancy and high-quality trials subgroups were consistent with overall results. Access to fetal blood sampling did not appear to influence differences in neonatal seizures or other outcomes.Evidence was assessed using GRADE. Most outcomes were graded as low quality evidence (rates of perinatal death, cerebral palsy, caesarean section, instrumental vaginal births, and any pharmacological analgesia), and downgraded for limitations in design, inconsistency and imprecision of results. The remaining outcomes were downgraded to moderate quality (neonatal seizures) and very low quality (cord blood acidosis) due to similar concerns over limitations in design, inconsistency and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CTG during labour is associated with reduced rates of neonatal seizures, but no clear differences in cerebral palsy, infant mortality or other standard measures of neonatal wellbeing. However, continuous CTG was associated with an increase in caesarean sections and instrumental vaginal births. The challenge is how best to convey these results to women to enable them to make an informed decision without compromising the normality of labour.The question remains as to whether future randomised trials should measure efficacy (the intrinsic value of continuous CTG in trying to prevent adverse neonatal outcomes under optimal clinical conditions) or effectiveness (the effect of this technique in routine clinical practice).Along with the need for further investigations into long-term effects of operative births for women and babies, much remains to be learned about the causation and possible links between antenatal or intrapartum events, neonatal seizures and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, whilst considering changes in clinical practice over the intervening years (one-to-one-support during labour, caesarean section rates). The large number of babies randomised to the trials in this review have now reached adulthood and could potentially provide a unique opportunity to clarify if a reduction in neonatal seizures is something inconsequential that should not greatly influence women's and clinicians' choices, or if seizure reduction leads to long-term benefits for babies. Defining meaningful neurological and behavioural outcomes that could be measured in large cohorts of young adults poses huge challenges. However, it is important to collect data from these women and babies while medical records still exist, where possible describe women's mobility and positions during labour and birth, and clarify if these might impact on outcomes. Research should also address the possible contribution of the supine position to adverse outcomes for babies, and assess whether the use of mobility and positions can further reduce the low incidence of neonatal seizures and improve psychological outcomes for women.

Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012-13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 µg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 µg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed 'best'. Few studies collected information on women's views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention. FUTURE WORK: Future trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment.

BACKGROUND: Cardiotocography (CTG) is a continuous recording of the fetal heart rate obtained via an ultrasound transducer placed on the mother's abdomen. CTG is widely used in pregnancy as a method of assessing fetal well-being, predominantly in pregnancies with increased risk of complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of antenatal CTG (both traditional and computerised assessments) in improving outcomes for mothers and babies during and after pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (26 June 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared traditional antenatal CTG with no CTG or CTG results concealed; computerised CTG with no CTG or CTG results concealed; and computerised CTG with traditional CTG. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies (involving 2105 women) are included. Overall, the included studies were not of high quality, and only two had both adequate randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment. All studies that were able to be included enrolled only women at increased risk of complications.Comparison of traditional CTG versus no CTG showed no significant difference identified in perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 4.42, 2.3% versus 1.1%, four studies, N = 1627, low quality evidence) or potentially preventable deaths (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.30, four studies, N = 1627), though the meta-analysis was underpowered to assess this outcome. Similarly, there was no significant difference identified in caesarean sections (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, 19.7% versus 18.5%, three trials, N = 1279, low quality evidence). There was also no significant difference identified for secondary outcomes related to Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.88, one trial, N = 396, very low quality evidence); or admission to neonatal special care units or neonatal intensive care units (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.39, two trials, N = 883, low quality evidence), nor in the other secondary outcomes that were assessed.There were no eligible studies that compared computerised CTG with no CTG.Comparison of computerised CTG versus traditional CTG showed a significant reduction in perinatal mortality with computerised CTG (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.88, two studies, 0.9% versus 4.2%, 469 women, moderate quality evidence). However, there was no significant difference identified in potentially preventable deaths (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.29, two studies, N = 469), though the meta-analysis was underpowered to assess this outcome. There was no significant difference identified in caesarean sections (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.24, 63% versus 72%, one study, N = 59, low quality evidence), Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.74, two studies, N = 469, very low quality evidence) or in secondary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence that antenatal CTG improves perinatal outcome, but further studies focusing on the use of computerised CTG in specific populations of women with increased risk of complications are warranted.

Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour.

BACKGROUND: Active management of the third stage of labour involves giving a prophylactic uterotonic, early cord clamping and controlled cord traction to deliver the placenta. With expectant management, signs of placental separation are awaited and the placenta is delivered spontaneously. Active management was introduced to try to reduce haemorrhage, a major contributor to maternal mortality in low-income countries. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of active versus expectant management of the third stage of labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 September 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing active versus expectant management of the third stage of labour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies (involving 8247 women), all undertaken in hospitals, six in high-income countries and one in a low-income country. Four studies compared active versus expectant management, and three compared active versus a mixture of managements. We used random-effects in the analyses because of clinical heterogeneity. There was an absence of high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments for our primary outcomes. The evidence suggested that for women at mixed levels of risk of bleeding, active management showed a reduction in the average risk of maternal primary haemorrhage at time of birth (more than 1000 mL) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.87, three studies, 4636 women, GRADE:very low quality) and of maternal haemoglobin (Hb) less than 9 g/dL following birth (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, two studies, 1572 women, GRADE:low quality). We also found no difference in the incidence in admission of infants to neonatal units (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11, two studies, 3207 infants, GRADE:low quality) nor in the incidence of infant jaundice requiring treatment (0.96, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.68, two studies, 3142 infants, GRADE:very low quality). There were no data on our other primary outcomes of very severe postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) at the time of birth (more than 2500 mL), maternal mortality, or neonatal polycythaemia needing treatment.Active management also showed a significant decrease in primary blood loss greater than 500 mL, and mean maternal blood loss at birth, maternal blood transfusion and therapeutic uterotonics during the third stage or within the first 24 hours, or both, and significant increases in maternal diastolic blood pressure, vomiting after birth, after-pains, use of analgesia from birth up to discharge from the labour ward and more women returning to hospital with bleeding (outcome not pre-specified). There was also a decrease in the baby's birthweight with active management, reflecting the lower blood volume from interference with placental transfusion.In the subgroup of women at low risk of excessive bleeding, there were similar findings, except there was no significant difference identified between groups for severe haemorrhage or maternal Hb less than 9 g/dL (at 24 to 72 hours).Hypertension and interference with placental transfusion might be avoided by using modifications to the active management package, e.g. omitting ergot and deferring cord clamping, but we have no direct evidence of this here. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a lack of high-quality evidence, active management of the third stage reduced the risk of haemorrhage greater than 1000 mL at the time of birth in a population of women at mixed risk of excessive bleeding, but adverse effects were identified. Women should be given information on the benefits and harms of both methods to support informed choice. Given the concerns about early cord clamping and the potential adverse effects of some uterotonics, it is critical now to look at the individual components of third-stage management. Data are also required from low-income countries.

Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version.

BACKGROUND: Breech presentation is associated with increased complications. Turning a breech baby to head first presentation using external cephalic version (ECV) attempts to reduce the chances of breech presentation at birth so as to avoid the adverse effects of breech vaginal birth or caesarean section. Interventions such as tocolytic drugs and other methods have been used in an attempt to facilitate ECV. OBJECTIVES: To assess, from the best evidence available, the effects of interventions such as tocolysis, acoustic stimulation for midline spine position, regional analgesia (epidural or spinal), transabdominal amnioinfusion, systemic opioids and hypnosis, or the use of abdominal lubricants, on ECV at term for successful version, presentation at birth, method of birth and perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2014) and the reference lists of identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the above interventions with no intervention or other methods to facilitate ECV at term. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed eligibility and trial quality. Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all potential studies identified as a result of the search strategy and independently extracted the data using a specially designed data extraction form. MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 studies, providing data on 2786 women. We used the random-effects model for pooling data because of clinical heterogeneity between studies. A number of trial reports gave insufficient information to allow clear assessment of risk of bias. We used GradePro software to carry out formal assessments of quality of the evidence for beta stimulants versus placebo and regional analgesia with tocolysis versus tocolysis alone.Tocolytic parenteral beta stimulants were effective in increasing cephalic presentations in labour (average risk ratio (RR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 2.48, five studies, 459 women, low-quality evidence) and in reducing the number of caesarean sections (average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, six studies, 742 women, moderate-quality evidence). Failure to achieve a cephalic vaginal birth was less likely for women receiving a parenteral beta stimulant (average RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.92, four studies, 399 women, moderate-quality evidence). No clear differences in fetal bradycardias were identified, although this was reported for only one study, which was underpowered for assessing this outcome. Failed external cephalic version was reported in nine studies (900 women), and women receiving parenteral beta stimulants were less likely to have failure compared with controls (average RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82, moderate-quality evidence). Perinatal mortality and serious morbidity were not reported. Sensitivity analysis by study quality was consistent with overall findings.For other classes of tocolytic drugs (calcium channel blockers and nitric oxide donors), evidence was insufficient to permit conclusions; outcomes were reported for only one or two studies, which were underpowered to demonstrate differences between treatment and control groups. Little evidence was found regarding adverse effects, although nitric oxide donors were associated with increased risk of headache. Data comparing different tocolytic drugs were insufficient.Regional analgesia in combination with a tocolytic was more effective than the tocolytic alone for increasing successful versions (assessed by the rate of failed ECVs; average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.86, five studies, 409 women, moderate-quality evidence), and no difference was identified in cephalic presentation in labour (average RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.53, three studies, 279 women, very low-quality evidence), caesarean sections (average RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.37, three studies, 279 women, very low-quality evidence) nor fetal bradycardia (average RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.57, two studies, 210 women, low-quality evidence), although studies were underpowered for assessing these outcomes. Studies did not report on failure to achieve a cephalic vaginal birth (breech vaginal deliveries plus caesarean sections) nor on perinatal mortality or serious infant morbidity.Data were insufficient on the use of regional analgesia without tocolysis, vibroacoustic stimulation, amnioinfusion, systemic opioids and hypnosis, and on the use of talcum powder or gel to assist external cephalic version, to permit conclusions about their effectiveness and safety. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Parenteral beta stimulants were effective in facilitating successful ECV, increasing cephalic presentation in labour and reducing the caesarean section rate, but data on adverse effects were insufficient. Data on calcium channel blockers and nitric acid donors were insufficient to provide good evidence.The scope for further research is clear. Possible benefits of tocolysis in reducing the force required for successful version and possible risks of side effects need to be addressed further. Further trials are needed to compare the effectiveness of routine versus selective use of tocolysis and the role of regional analgesia, fetal acoustic stimulation, amnioinfusion and abdominal lubricants, and the effects of hypnosis, in facilitating ECV. Although randomised trials of nitric oxide donors are small, the results are sufficiently negative to discourage further trials. Intervention fidelity for ECV can be enhanced by standardisation of the techniques and processes used for clinical manipulation of the fetus in the abdominal cavity and ought to be the subject of further research.

Different classes of antibiotics given to women routinely for preventing infection at caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean section increases the risk of postpartum infection for women and prophylactic antibiotics have been shown to reduce the incidence; however, there are adverse effects. It is important to identify the most effective class of antibiotics to use and those with the least adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To determine, from the best available evidence, the balance of benefits and harms between different classes of antibiotic given prophylactically to women undergoing caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2014) and reference lists of retrieved papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing different classes of prophylactic antibiotics given to women undergoing caesarean section. We excluded trials that compared drugs with placebo or drugs within a specific class; these are assessed in other Cochrane reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 35 studies of which 31 provided data on 7697 women. For the main comparison between cephalosporins versus penicillins, there were 30 studies of which 27 provided data on 7299 women. There was a lack of good quality data and important outcomes often included only small numbers of women.For the comparison of a single cephalosporin versus a single penicillin (Comparison 1 subgroup 1), we found no significant difference between these classes of antibiotics for our chosen most important seven outcomes namely: maternal sepsis - there were no women with sepsis in the two studies involving 346 women; maternal endometritis (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.52, nine studies, 3130 women, random effects, moderate quality of the evidence); maternal wound infection (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.81, nine studies, 1497 women, random effects, low quality of the evidence), maternal urinary tract infection (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.48, seven studies, 1120 women, low quality of the evidence) and maternal composite adverse effects (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.96, three studies, 1902 women, very low quality of the evidence). None of the included studies looked for infant sepsis nor infant oral thrush.This meant we could only conclude that the current evidence shows no overall difference between the different classes of antibiotics in terms of reducing maternal infections after caesarean sections. However, none of the studies reported on infections diagnosed after the initial postoperative hospital stay. We were unable to assess what impact, if any, the use of different classes of antibiotics might have on bacterial resistance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the best currently available evidence, cephalosporins and penicillins have similar efficacy at caesarean section when considering immediate postoperative infections. We have no data for outcomes on the baby, nor on late infections (up to 30 days) in the mother. Clinicians need to consider bacterial resistance and women's individual circumstances.

Parents' views on care of their very premature babies in neonatal intensive care units: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The admission of a very premature infant to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is often a difficult time for parents. This paper explores parents' views and experiences of the care for their very premature baby on NICU. METHODS: Parents were eligible if they had a baby born before 32 weeks gestation and cared for in a NICU, and spoke English well. 32 mothers and 7 fathers were interviewed to explore their experiences of preterm birth. Although parents' evaluation of care in the NICU was not the aim of these interviews, all parents spoke spontaneously and at length on this topic. Results were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Overall, parents were satisfied with the care on the neonatal unit. Three major themes determining satisfaction with neonatal care emerged: 1) parents' involvement; including looking after their own baby, the challenges of expressing breast milk, and easy access to their baby; 2) staff competence and efficiency; including communication, experience and confidence, information and explanation; and 3) interpersonal relationships with staff; including sensitive and emotional support, reassurance and encouragement, feeling like an individual. CONCLUSIONS: Determinants of positive experiences of care were generally consistent with previous research. Specifically, provision of information, support for parents and increasing their involvement in the care of their baby were highlighted by parents as important in their experience of care.