Rapid point of care test for detecting urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in nonpregnant women and men at reproductive age.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis (C trachomatis) is one of the most frequent sexually transmitted infections and a source of deleterious effects on the reproductive health of men and women. Because this infection is likely asymptomatic and is associated with subfertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pain, its presence needs to be confirmed. Technologies available for the diagnosis of C trachomatis infection can be classified into tests performed in a laboratory and rapid tests at the point of care (POC tests). Laboratory-based tests include culture, nucleic acid amplification tests, enzyme immunoassays (EIA), direct fluorescent antibody, nucleic acid hybridization, and transformation tests. Rapid tests include solid-phase EIA and solid-phase optical immunoassay. POC tests can be performed within 30 minutes without the need for expensive or sophisticated equipment. The principal advantage of this technology is the immediate presentation of results with the subsequent possibility to start the treatment of infected patients immediately. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care (POC) testing for detecting urogenital C trachomatis infection in nonpregnant women and men of reproductive age, as verified with nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) as the reference standard. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched Web of Science, two trials registries and an abstract database. We screened reference lists of included studies for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic nonpregnant women and men reproductive age. Included trials should have prospectively enrolled participants without previous diagnostic testing, co-infections or complications and consecutively or through random sampling at primary or secondary care facilities. Only studies reporting that all participants received the index test and the reference standard and presenting 2 x 2 data were eligible for inclusion. We excluded diagnostic case-control studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Two review authors independently, and in duplicate, assessed eligibility, extracted data, and carried out quality assessment. We resolved differences through consensus or by involving a third review author. We assessed studies for methodological quality using QUADAS-2 and used meta-analysis to combine the results of studies using the bivariate approach to estimate the expected sensitivity and specificity values. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria and explored sources of heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 19 studies, with 13,676 participants, that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of POC tests for C trachomatis infection in nonpregnant women and men of reproductive age, as verified with NAATs as the reference standard. Rapid tests were provided by the distributors in nine studies. Seven studies recruited a predominantly high risk or symptomatic population; the studies were conducted in America, Asia, Africa, Europe and Oceania, with a median prevalence of 10% (range 8% to 28%); nine different brands were assessed. The mean sensitivity for rapid tests for detecting urogenital infection was 0.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.58; low-quality evidence) with a mean specificity of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99; moderate-quality evidence). We explored sources of heterogeneity by looking into differences in diagnostic accuracy according to the specimen (endocervical versus urine or vaginal), symptoms among participants (symptomatic versus asymptomatic), and setting (low/middle-income versus high-income countries). Likelihood ratio tests were not significantly different in terms of sensitivity or specificity by specimen (P = 0.27) or setting (P = 0.28); for this reason, these covariates do not appear to explain the observed variability. Included studies did not provide enough information to assess the 'presence of symptoms' covariate. We downgraded the quality of evidence because of some limitations in applicability and heterogeneity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this systematic review, the POC test based on antigen detection has suboptimal sensitivity but good specificity. Performance of this test translates, on average, to a 52% chance of mistakenly indicating absence of infection and a 2% chance of mistakenly pointing to the presence of this condition. Because of its deleterious consequences for reproductive health, and considering the current availability of safe and effective interventions to treat C trachomatis infection, the POC screening strategy should not be based on a rapid diagnostic test for antigen detection. Research in this topic should focus on different technologies.

Antibiotics for treating urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in men and non-pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: The genital infection caused by Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) is a common sexually transmitted infection (STI) globally. The infection is mainly asymptomatic in women, thus it can produce infertility and chronic pelvic pain. In men infection is mainly symptomatic, but can evolve to prostatitis. Clinical practice guidelines for CT urogenital infections do not give any specific recommendation about which antibiotic use as first option OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment for CT genital infection in men and non-pregnant women. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections' (STI) Information Specialist developed the electronic searches in electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS), and trials registers. We searched studies published from inception to June 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of men, and sexually-active, non-pregnant women with CT infection (urethritis or uterine cervicitis or asymptomatic), diagnosed by cell culture for CT, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) or antigen-based detection methods, who had been treated with any of the antibiotic regimens recommended by any of the updated to 2013 CT Guidelines. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors screened evidence according to selection criteria and independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Two authors developed the 'Summary of findings' tables. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis model for combining data where it was reasonable to assume that studies were estimating the same underlying treatment effect. We estimated the pooled risk ratio in order to establish the effects of the comparisons. Our primary outcomes were microbiological failure and adverse events, and our secondary outcomes were clinical failure, antimicrobial resistance and reinfection. MAIN RESULTS: We selected 14 studies ( 2715 participants: 2147 (79.08%) men and 568 (20.92%) women). The studies were conducted mainly at STD clinics. Sample sizes ranged from 71 to 606 participants; follow-up was 29.7 days on average.For the comparison: azithromycin single dose versus doxycycline once or twice daily for 7 days, in men treated for CT, the risk of microbiological failure was higher in the azithromycin group (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.41; participants = 821; studies = 9; moderate-quality evidence), but regarding clinical failure, the results showed that the effect is uncertain (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2,05; I² = 55%; participants = 525; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). Regarding adverse events (AE) in men there could be little or no difference between the antibiotics (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; participants = 1424; studies = 6; low-quality evidence). About women treated for CT, the effect on microbiological failure was uncertain (RR = 1.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 6.16; participants = 338; studies = 5; very low-quality evidence). There were no studies assessing clinical failure or adverse events in women, however, we found that azithromycin probably has fewer adverse events in both genders (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; I² = 0%; participants = 2261; studies = 9; moderate-quality evidence).For the second comparison: doxycycline compared to ofloxacin, for men treated for CT the effect on microbiological failure was uncertain (RR 8.53, 95% CI 0.43 to 167.38, I² not applicable; participants = 80; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence), as also it was on clinical failure (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.62; participants = 36; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). The effect of in women on clinical failure was uncertain (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.25; I² = 39%; participants = 127; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).Regarding adverse events, the effect in both men and women was uncertain (RR 1.02 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; participants = 339 studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). The effect on microbiological failure in women and in men and women together, the effect on microbiological failure was not estimable. The most frequently AE reported were not serious and of gastrointestinal origin.No studies assessed antimicrobial resistance or reinfection in either comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In men, regimens with azithromycin are probably less effective than doxycycline for microbiological failure, however, there might be little or no difference for clinical failure. For women, we are uncertain whether azithromycin compared to doxycycline increases the risk of microbiological failure. Azithromycin probably slightly reduces adverse events compared to doxycycline in men and women together but may have little difference in men alone. We are uncertain whether doxycycline compared to ofloxacin reduces microbiological failure in men or women alone, or men and women together, nor if it reduces clinical failure or adverse events in men or women.Based on the fact that women suffer mainly asymptomatic infections, and in order to test the effectiveness and safety of the current recommendations (azithromycin, doxycycline and ofloxacin), for CT infection, especially in low and middle income countries, future RCTs should be designed and conducted to include a large enough sample size of women, and with low risk of bias. It is also important that future RCTs include adherence, CT resistance to antibiotic regimens, and risk of reinfection as outcomes to be measured. In addition, it is important to conduct a network meta-analysis in order to evaluate all those studies that included in one arm only the current antibiotic treatments for CT infection that are recommended by the updated clinical practice guidelines.

Home-based versus clinic-based specimen collection in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) are the most frequent causes of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Management strategies that reduce losses in the clinical pathway from infection to cure might improve STI control and reduce complications resulting from lack of, or inadequate, treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of home-based specimen collection as part of the management strategy for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections compared with clinic-based specimen collection in sexually-active people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS on 27 May 2015, together with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also handsearched conference proceedings, contacted trial authors and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of home-based compared with clinic-based specimen collection in the management of C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information. We resolved any disagreements through consensus. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcome was index case management, defined as the number of participants tested, diagnosed and treated, if test positive. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials involving 10,479 participants were included. There was inconclusive evidence of an effect on the proportion of participants with index case management (defined as individuals tested, diagnosed and treated for CT or NG, or both) in the group with home-based (45/778, 5.8%) compared with clinic-based (51/788, 6.5%) specimen collection (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.29; 3 trials, I² = 0%, 1566 participants, moderate quality). Harms of home-based specimen collection were not evaluated in any trial. All 10 trials compared the proportions of individuals tested. The results for the proportion of participants completing testing had high heterogeneity (I² = 100%) and were not pooled. We could not combine data from individual studies looking at the number of participants tested because the proportions varied widely across the studies, ranging from 30% to 96% in home group and 6% to 97% in clinic group (low-quality evidence). The number of participants with positive test was lower in the home-based specimen collection group (240/2074, 11.6%) compared with the clinic-based group (179/967, 18.5%) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.86; 9 trials, I² = 0%, 3041 participants, moderate quality). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Home-based specimen collection could result in similar levels of index case management for CT or NG infection when compared with clinic-based specimen collection. Increases in the proportion of individuals tested as a result of home-based, compared with clinic-based, specimen collection are offset by a lower proportion of positive results. The harms of home-based specimen collection compared with clinic-based specimen collection have not been evaluated. Future RCTs to assess the effectiveness of home-based specimen collection should be designed to measure biological outcomes of STI case management, such as proportion of participants with negative tests for the relevant STI at follow-up.

Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non-immunocompromised adults.

BACKGROUND: 30% of people with anogenital warts (AGW) have spontaneous regression of lesions but there is no way to determine whether a specific lesion will remain. There are a wide range of options available for treating people with AGW and selection is based on clinician's experience, patient preferences and adverse effects. The imiquimod could offer the advantages of patient-applied therapies without incurring the limitations of provider-administered treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of imiquimod for the treatment of AGW in non-immunocompromised adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Group Specialized Register (15 April 2014), CENTRAL (1991 to 15 April 2014), MEDLINE (1946 to 15 April 2014), EMBASE (1947 to 15 April 2014), LILACS (1982 to 15 April 2014), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) (15 April 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (15 April 2014), Web of Science (2001 to 15 April 2014) and OpenGrey (15 April 2014). We also handsearched conference proceedings, contacted trial authors and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of imiquimod with placebo, any other patient-applied or any other provider-administered treatment (excluding interferon and 5-fluorouracil which are assessed in other Cochrane Reviews) for the treatment of AGW in non-immunocompromised adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements through consensus. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Ten RCTs (1734 participants) met our inclusion criteria of which six were funded by industry. We judged the risk of bias of the included trials as high. Six trials (1294 participants) compared the use of imiquimod versus placebo. There was very low quality evidence that imiquimod was superior to placebo in achieving complete and partial regression (RR 4.03, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.99; RR 2.56, 95% CI 2.05 to 3.20, respectively). When compared with placebo, the effects of imiquimod on recurrence (RR 2.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 10.91), appearance of new warts (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.00) and frequency of systemic adverse reactions (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.32) were imprecise. We downgraded the quality of evidence to low or very low. There was low quality evidence that imiquimod led to more local adverse reactions (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.53) and pain (RR 11.84, 95% CI 3.36 to 41.63).Two trials (105 participants) compared the use of imiquimod versus any other patient-applied treatment (podophyllotoxin and podophyllin). The estimated effects of imiquimod on complete regression (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.48), partial regression (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.47), recurrence (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11) or the presence of local adverse reactions (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.54) were imprecise (very low quality evidence). There was low quality evidence that systemic adverse reactions were less frequent with imiquimod (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.98).Finally, two trials (335 participants) compared imiquimod with any other provider-administered treatment (ablative methods and cryotherapy). There was very low quality of evidence that imiquimod did not have a lower frequency of complete regression (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28). There was very low quality evidence that imiquimod led to a lower rate of recurrence during six-month follow-up (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.56) but this did not translate in to a lower recurrence from six to 12 months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; very low quality evidence). There was very low quality evidence that imiquimod was associated with less pain (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.54) and fewer local reactions (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The benefits and harms of imiquimod compared with placebo should be regarded with caution due to the risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency for many of the outcomes we assessed in this Cochrane Review. The evidence for many of the outcomes that show imiquimod and patient-applied treatment (podophyllotoxin or podophyllin) confer similar benefits but fewer systematic reactions with the Imiquimod, is of low or very low quality. The quality of evidence for the outcomes assessing imiquimod and other provider-administered treatment were of very low quality.

Laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original review, published in Issue 1, 2011, of The Cochrane Library. Acute lower abdominal pain is common, and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal women, as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with symptoms of appendicitis, early pregnancy complications and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age. SEARCH METHODS: The Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINAHL were searched (October 2013). The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched. No new studies were included in this updated version. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included. Trials were included if they evaluated laparoscopy with open appendicectomy, or laparoscopy with a wait and see strategy. Study selection was carried out by two review authors independently. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two review authors and the risk of bias assessed. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. A summary of findings table was prepared using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 12 studies including 1020 participants were incorporated into the review. These studies had low to moderate risk of bias, mainly because allocation concealment or methods of sequence generation were not adequately reported. In addition, it was not clear whether follow-up was similar for the treatment groups. The index test was incorporated as a reference standard in the laparoscopy group, and differential verification or partial verification bias may have occurred in most RCTs. Overall the quality of the evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach.Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (seven RCTs, 561 participants; odds ratio (OR) 4.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.50 to 6.71; I(2) = 18%), but no evidence was found of reduced rates for any adverse events (eight RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I(2) = 0%). A meta-analysis of seven studies found a significant difference favouring the laparoscopic procedure in the rate of removal of normal appendix (seven RCTs, 475 participants; OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.24; I(2) = 0%).Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. A significant difference favoured laparoscopy in terms of rate of specific diagnoses (four RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I(2) = 79%), but no evidence suggested a difference in rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I(2) = 0%).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that laparoscopy in women with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis led to a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared with open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. No evidence showed an increase in adverse events when any of these strategies were used.

Prostaglandins for management of retained placenta.

BACKGROUND: Retained placenta affects 0.5% to 3% of women following delivery and it is a major cause of maternal death due to postpartum haemorrhage. Usually, retained placenta has been managed by manual removal or curettage under anaesthesia, which may be associated with haemorrhage, infection and uterine perforation. Medical management to facilitate the delivery of the retained placenta could be a safe alternative avoiding surgical intervention. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of prostaglandins for the management of retained placenta. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 December 2013), LILACS (1982 to 1 December 2013), SciELO (1998 to 1 December 2013), Web of Science (2001 to 1 December 2013), openSIGLE (1997 to 1 December 2013), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 December 2013) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (1 December 2013). We also contacted authors of included studies and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials comparing the use of prostaglandins (or prostaglandin analogues) with placebo, expectant management, tocolytic drugs, any other prostaglandins or surgical interventions for the management of retained placenta after vaginal delivery of singleton live infants of 20 or more weeks of gestation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved through consensus or consultation with a third review author when required. Authors of the included studies were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials, involving 244 women. The studies were considered to be at high risk of bias.The prostaglandins used were PG E2 analogue (sulprostone) in 50 participants and PG E1 analogue (misoprostol) in 194 participants at a dose of 250 mcg and 800 mcg respectively. The prostaglandins compared with placebo, were not superior in reducing the rate of manual removal of placenta (average risk ratio (RR) 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.27), severe postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15), need for blood transfusion (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.22), mean blood loss (mean difference (MD) -205.26 mL; 95% CI -536.31 to 125.79, random-effects) and the mean time from injection to placental removal (MD -7.00 minutes; 95% CI -21.20 to 7.20). Side-effects were no different between groups (vomiting, headache, pain and nausea between injection and discharge from the labour ward), with the exception of shivering, which was more frequent in women receiving prostaglandins (RR 10.00; 95% CI 1.40 to 71.49). We did not obtain any data for the primary outcomes of maternal mortality and the need to add another therapeutic uterotonic. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is limited, very low-quality evidence relating to the effectiveness and the safety using prostaglandins for the management of retained placenta. Use of prostaglandins resulted in less need for manual removal of placenta, severe postpartum haemorrhage and blood transfusion but none of the differences reached statistical significance. Much larger, adequately powered studies are needed to confirm that these clinically important beneficial effects are not just chance findings.Similarly, no differences were detected between prostaglandins and placebo in mean blood loss or the mean time from injection to placental removal (minutes) or side-effects (vomiting, headache, pain and nausea between injection and discharge from the labour ward) except for 'shivering' which was more frequent in women who received prostaglandin. The included studies were of poor quality and there is little confidence in the effect estimates; the true effect is likely to be substantially different. We can not make any recommendations about changes to clinical practice. More high-quality research in this area is needed.

Enemas during labour.

BACKGROUND: Although the use of enemas during labour usually reflects the preference of the attending healthcare provider, enemas may cause discomfort for women. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of enemas applied during the first stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), PubMed (1966 to 31 May 2013), LILACS (31 May 2013), the Search Portal of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 May 2013), Health Technology Assessment Program, UK (31 May 2013), Medical Research Council, UK (31 May 2013), The Wellcome Trust, UK (31 May 2013) and reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which an enema was administered during the first stage of labour and which included assessment of possible neonatal or puerperal morbidity or mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs (1917 women) met the inclusion criteria. One study was judged as having a low risk of bias. In the meta-analysis we conducted of two trials, we found no significant difference in infection rates for puerperal women (two RCTs; 594 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence (CI) 0.42 to 1.04). No significant differences were found in neonatal umbilical infection rates (two RCTs; 592 women; RR 3.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 19.82; I(2) 0%. In addition, meta-analysis of two studies found that there were no significant differences in the degree of perineal tear between groups. Finally, meta-analysis of two trials found no significant differences in the mean duration of labour. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence provided by the four included RCTs shows that enemas do not have a significant beneficial effect on infection rates such as perineal wound infection or other neonatal infections and women's satisfaction. These findings speak against the routine use of enemas during labour, therefore, such practice should be discouraged.

Enemas during labour.

BACKGROUND: Although the use of enemas during labour usually reflects the preference of the attending healthcare provider, enemas may cause discomfort for women. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of enemas applied during the first stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 May 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5), PubMed (1966 to 17 May 2012), LILACS (17 May 2012), the Search Portal of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 May 2012), Health Technology Assessment Program, UK (17 May 2012), Medical Research Council, UK (17 May 2012), The Wellcome Trust, UK (17 May 2012) and reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which an enema was administered during the first stage of labour and which included assessment of possible neonatal or puerperal morbidity or mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion.  MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs (1917 women) met the inclusion criteria. One study was judged as having a low risk of bias. In the meta-analysis we conducted of two trials, we found no significant difference in infection rates for puerperal women (two RCTs; 594 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence (CI) 0.42 to 1.04). No significant differences were found in neonatal umbilical infection rates (two RCTs; 592 women; RR 3.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 19.82; I² 0%. In addition, meta-analysis of two studies found that there were no significant differences in the degree of perineal tear between groups. Finally, meta-analysis of two trials found no significant differences in the mean duration of labour. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence provided by the four included RCTs shows that enemas do not have a significant beneficial effect on infection rates such as perineal wound infection or other neonatal infections and women's satisfaction. These findings speak against the routine use of enemas during labour, therefore, such practice should be discouraged.

Laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age.

BACKGROUND: Acute lower abdominal pain is common and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal woman as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with the symptoms of appendicitis and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age. SEARCH STRATEGY: The  Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINHAL were searched (to April 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, nonspecific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two authors and the risk of bias assessed. MAIN RESULTS: Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (7 RCTs, 561 participants; OR 4.10, 95% CI 2.50 to 6.71; I(2) 18%) but there was no evidence of reduced rate for any adverse event (8 RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I(2) 0%).Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. There was a significant difference favouring laparoscopy in the rate of specific diagnoses (4 RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I(2) 79%) but there was no evidence of a difference in the rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I(2) 0%).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The advantages of laparoscopy in women with nonspecific abdominal pain and suspected appendicitis include a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared to open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. There was no evidence of an increase in adverse events with any of the strategies.

Cost effectiveness of diagnostic laparoscopy in reproductive aged females suffering from non-specific acute low abdominal pain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs and effectiveness of early laparoscopy with those of conventional diagnostic methods based on clinical and paraclinical observation and diagnostic images for ascertaining the cause of non-specific acute low abdominal pain (NSALAP) in females of reproductive age from the third-party payers' (TPP) point of view. POPULATION: 110 reproductive aged females suffering from NSALAP. PLACE: Instituto Materno Infantil, perinatal and maternal attention referral hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. RESEARCH DESIGN: cost-effectiveness study of a controlled clinical trial carried out in 1998 and 1999. Outcomes to be measured: effectiveness, direct medical costs (in Colombian pesos and their equivalent in US dollars (USD-December 2004) from length of hospital stay, diagnostic procedures carried out, medical visits and managing complications. ANALYSIS: Cost-effectiveness incremental ratio, analysing sensitivity in five different scenarios. RESULTS: Early diagnostic laparoscopy was more cost-effective in 4 out of the 5 possible scenarios. Savings varying from dollar 21.875 to dollar 69.834 (USD 9.42 and USD 30.1) were made per unit of increased effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Early diagnostic laparoscopy was cost-effective in 4 out of 5 scenarios dealing with managing NSALAP in reproductive aged females.