Neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 years in children who received sildenafil therapy in utero: The STRIDER randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Severe early-onset fetal growth restriction (FGR) causes stillbirth, neonatal death and neurodevelopmental impairment. Poor maternal spiral artery remodelling maintains vasoactive responsiveness but is susceptible to treatment with sildenafil, a phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor, which may improve perinatal outcomes. DESIGN: Superiority, double-blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A total of 20 UK fetal medicine units. POPULATION: Pregnancies affected by FGR, defined as an abdominal circumference below the tenth centile with absent end-diastolic flow in the umbilical artery between 22+0 and 29+6 weeks of gestation. METHODS: Treatment with sildenafil (25 mg three times/day) or placebo until delivery or 32 weeks of gestation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All infants alive at hospital discharge were assessed for cardiovascular function and cognitive, speech/language and neuromotor impairment at 2 years of age. The primary outcome was survival without cerebral palsy or neurosensory impairment, or a Bayley-III composite score of >85. RESULTS: In total, 135 women were randomised between November 2014 and July 2016 (70 to sildenafil and 65 to placebo). We previously published that there was no improvement in time to delivery or perinatal outcomes with sildenafil. In all, 75 babies (55.5%) were discharged alive, with 61 infants eligible for follow-up (32 sildenafil and 29 placebo). One infant died (placebo), three mothers declined and ten mothers were uncontactable. There was no difference in neurodevelopment or blood pressure following treatment with sildenafil. Infants who received sildenafil had a larger head circumference at 2 years of age (median difference 49.2 cm, IQR 46.4-50.3, vs 47.2 cm, 95% CI 44.7-48.9 cm). CONCLUSIONS: Sildenafil therapy did not prolong pregnancy or improve perinatal outcomes and did not improve infant neurodevelopment in FGR survivors. Therefore, sildenafil should not be prescribed for this condition.

Oral misoprostol alone, compared with oral misoprostol followed by oxytocin, in women induced for hypertension of pregnancy: A multicentre randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether, in those requiring continuing uterine stimulation after cervical ripening with oral misoprostol and membrane rupture, augmentation with low-dose oral misoprostol is superior to intravenous oxytocin. DESIGN: Open-label, superiority randomised trial. SETTING: Government hospitals in India. POPULATION: Women who were induced for hypertensive disease in pregnancy and had undergone cervical ripening with oral misoprostol, but required continuing stimulation after artificial membrane rupture. METHODS: Participants received misoprostol (25 micrograms, orally, 2-hourly) or titrated oxytocin through an infusion pump. All women had one-to-one care; fetal monitoring was conducted using a mixture of intermittent and continuous electronic fetal monitoring. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Caesarean birth. RESULTS: A total of 520 women were randomised and the baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. The caesarean section rate was not reduced with the use of misoprostol (misoprostol, 84/260, 32.3%, vs oxytocin, 71/260, 27.3%; aOR 1.23; 95% CI 0.81-1.85; P = 0.33). The interval from randomisation to birth was somewhat longer with misoprostol (225 min, 207-244 min, vs 194 min, 179-210 min; aOR 1.137; 95% CI 1.023-1.264; P = 0.017). There were no cases of hyperstimulation in either arm. The rates of fetal heart rate abnormalities and maternal side effects were similar. Fewer babies in the misoprostol arm were admitted to the special care unit (10 vs 21 in the oxytocin group; aOR 0.463; 95% CI 0.203-1.058; P = 0.068) and there were no neonatal deaths in the misoprostol group, compared with three neonatal deaths in the oxytocin arm. Women's acceptability ratings were high in both study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Following cervical preparation with oral misoprostol and membrane rupture, the use of continuing oral misoprostol for augmentation did not significantly reduce caesarean rates, compared with the use of oxytocin. There were no hyperstimulation or significant adverse events in either arm of the trial.

Diagnosis and management of selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancies: A cross-sectional international survey.

OBJECTIVE: To identify current practices in the management of selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) in monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) twin pregnancies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: International. POPULATION: Clinicians involved in the management of MCDA twin pregnancies with sFGR. METHODS: A structured, self-administered survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical practices and attitudes to diagnostic criteria and management strategies. RESULTS: Overall, 62.8% (113/180) of clinicians completed the survey; of which, 66.4% (75/113) of the respondents reported that they would use an estimated fetal weight (EFW) of <10th centile for the smaller twin and an inter-twin EFW discordance of >25% for the diagnosis of sFGR. For early-onset type I sFGR, 79.8% (75/94) of respondents expressed that expectant management would be their routine practice. On the other hand, for early-onset type II and type III sFGR, 19.3% (17/88) and 35.7% (30/84) of respondents would manage these pregnancies expectantly, whereas 71.6% (63/88) and 57.1% (48/84) would refer these pregnancies to a fetal intervention centre or would offer fetal intervention for type II and type III cases, respectively. Moreover, 39.0% (16/41) of the respondents would consider fetoscopic laser surgery (FLS) for early-onset type I sFGR, whereas 41.5% (17/41) would offer either FLS or selective feticide, and 12.2% (5/41) would exclusively offer selective feticide. For early-onset type II and type III sFGR cases, 25.9% (21/81) and 31.4% (22/70) would exclusively offer FLS, respectively, whereas 33.3% (27/81) and 32.9% (23/70) would exclusively offer selective feticide. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in clinician practices and attitudes towards the management of early-onset sFGR in MCDA twin pregnancies, especially for type II and type III cases, highlighting the need for high-level evidence to guide management.

Foetal loss after chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis in twin pregnancies: A multicentre retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine foetal losses for DCDA and MCDA twins following transabdominal CVS or amniocentesis performed <22+0  weeks. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study conducted in the UK and Belgium 01/01/00-01/06/20. Cases with unknown chorionicity, monochorionic complications or complex procedures were excluded. Uncomplicated DCDA and MCDA twins without invasive procedures were identified as controls. We reported foetal losses <24+0  weeks and losses of genetically and structurally normal foetuses. RESULTS: Outcomes were compared for DCDA foetuses; 258 after CVS with 3406 controls, 406 after amniocentesis with 3390 controls plus MCDA foetuses, 98 after CVS with 1124 controls, and 160 after amniocentesis with 1122 controls. There were more losses <24+0  weeks with both procedures in DCDA (CVS RR 5.54 95% CI 3.38-9.08, amniocentesis RR 2.36 95% CI 1.22-4.56) and MCDA twins (CVS RR 5.14 95% CI 2.51-10.54, amniocentesis RR 7.01 95% CI 3.86-12.74). Losses of normal foetuses were comparable to controls (DCDA CVS RR 0.39 95% CI 0.05-2.83, DCDA amniocentesis RR 1.16 95% CI 0.42-3.22, MCDA CVS RR 2.3 95% CI 0.71-7.56, and MCDA amniocentesis RR 1.93 95% CI 0.59-6.38). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates increased foetal losses for DCDA and MCDA twins following CVS and amniocentesis with uncertain risk to normal foetuses.

Amnioinfusion versus Usual Care in Women with Prelabor Rupture of Membranes in Midtrimester: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Midtrimester prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) between 16 and 24 weeks of gestational age is a major obstetric complication with high rates of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Amnioinfusion has been proposed in women with midtrimester PROM to target oligohydramnios and subsequently enhance pulmonary development and perinatal outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis including all randomized clinical trials investigating amnioinfusion versus no intervention in women with PROM between 16+0 and 24+0 weeks of gestational age. Databases Central, Embase, Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov and references of identified articles were searched from inception of database to December 2021. The primary outcome was perinatal mortality. Secondary outcomes included neonatal, maternal, and long-term developmental outcomes as defined in the core outcome set for preterm birth studies. Summary measures were reported as pooled relative risk (RR) or mean difference with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Two studies (112 patients, 56 in the amnioinfusion group and 56 in the no intervention group) were included in this review. Pooled perinatal mortality was 66.1% (37/56) in the amnioinfusion group compared with 71.4% (40/56) in no intervention group (RR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.19). Other neonatal and maternal core outcomes were similar in both groups, although due to the relatively small number of events and wide CIs, there is a possibility that amnioinfusion can be associated with clinically important benefits and harms. Long-term healthy survival was seen in 35.7% (10/28) of children assessed for follow-up and treated with amnioinfusion versus 28.6% (8/28) after no intervention (RR 1.30, 95% CI: 0.47-3.60, "best case scenario"). CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, the benefits of amnioinfusion for midtrimester PROM <24 weeks of gestational age are unproven, and the potential harms remain undetermined.

Controversies in the prevention of spontaneous preterm birth in asymptomatic women: an evidence summary and expert opinion.

Preterm birth prevention is multifaceted and produces many nuanced questions. This review addresses six important clinical questions about preterm birth prevention as voted for by members of the UK Preterm Clinical Network. The questions cover the following areas: preterm birth prevention in 'low-risk' populations; screening for asymptomatic genital tract infection in women at high risk of preterm birth; cervical length screening with cerclage or vaginal pessary in situ; cervical shortening whilst using progesterone; use of vaginal progesterone in combination with cervical cerclage; and optimal advice about intercourse for women at high risk of preterm birth.

Oral Misoprostol alone versus oral misoprostol followed by oxytocin for labour induction in women with hypertension in pregnancy (MOLI): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Every year approximately 30,000 women die from hypertensive disease in pregnancy. Magnesium sulphate and anti-hypertensives reduce morbidity, but delivery is the only cure. Low dose oral misoprostol, a prostaglandin E1 analogue, is a highly effective method for labour induction. Usually, once active labour has commenced, the misoprostol is replaced with an intravenous oxytocin infusion if ongoing stimulation is required. However, some studies have shown that oral misoprostol can be continued into active labour, a simpler and potentially more acceptable protocol for women. To date, these two protocols have never been directly compared. METHODS: This pragmatic, open-label, randomised trial will compare a misoprostol alone labour induction protocol with the standard misoprostol plus oxytocin protocol in three Indian hospitals. The study will recruit 520 pregnant women being induced for hypertensive disease in pregnancy and requiring augmentation after membrane rupture. Participants will be randomised to receive either further oral misoprostol 25mcg every 2 h, or titrated intravenous oxytocin. The primary outcome will be caesarean birth. Secondary outcomes will assess the efficacy of the induction process, maternal and fetal/neonatal complications and patient acceptability. This protocol (version 1.04) adheres to the SPIRIT checklist. A cost-effectiveness analysis, situational analysis and formal qualitative assessment of women's experience are also planned. DISCUSSION: Avoiding oxytocin and continuing low dose misoprostol into active labour may have a number of benefits for both women and the health care system. Misoprostol is heat stable, oral medication and thus easy to store, transport and administer; qualities particularly desirable in low resource settings. An oral medication protocol requires less equipment (e.g. electronic infusion pumps) and may free up health care providers to assist with other aspects of the woman's care. The simplicity of the protocol may also help to reduce human errors associated with the delivery of intravenous infusions. Finally, women may prefer to be mobile during labour and not restricted by an intravenous infusion. There is a need, therefore, to assess whether augmentation using oral misoprostol is superior clinically and economically to the standard protocol of intravenous oxytocin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov, NCT03749902 , registered on 21st Nov 2018.

Plasma long-chain omega-3 fatty acid status and risk of recurrent early spontaneous preterm birth: a prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: A 2018 Cochrane review found that omega-3 supplementation in pregnancy was associated with a risk reduction of early preterm birth of 0.58; prompting calls for universal supplementation. Recent analysis suggests the benefit may be confined to women with a low baseline omega-3 fatty acid status. However, the contemporary omega-3 fatty acid status of pregnant women in the UK is largely unknown. This is particularly pertinent for women with a previous preterm birth, in whom a small relative risk reduction would have a larger reduction of absolute risk. This study aimed to assess the omega-3 fatty acid status of a UK pregnant population and determine the association between the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids and recurrent spontaneous early preterm birth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 283 high-risk women with previous early preterm birth were recruited to the prospective observational study in Liverpool, UK. Additionally, 96 pregnant women with previous term births and birth ≥39+0  weeks in the index pregnancy provided a low-risk population sample. Within the high-risk group we assessed the odds ratio of recurrent early preterm birth compared with birth at ≥37+0  weeks of gestation according to plasma eicosapentaenoic acid plus docosahexaenoic acid (EPA+DHA) at 15-22 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: Our participants had low EPA+DHA; 62% (143/229) of women with previous preterm birth and 69% (68/96) of the population sample had levels within the lowest two quintiles of a previously published pregnancy cohort. We found no association between long-chain omega-3 status and recurrent early preterm birth (n = 51). The crude odds ratio of a recurrent event was 0.91 (95% CI 0.38-2.15, p = 0.83) for women in the lowest, compared with the highest three quintiles of EPA+DHA. CONCLUSIONS: In the majority of our participants, levels of long-chain omega-3 were low; within the range that may benefit from supplementation. However, levels showed no association with risk of recurrent early spontaneous preterm birth. This could be because our population levels were too low to show benefit in being omega-3 "replete"; or else omega-3 levels may be of lesser importance in recurrent early preterm birth.

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.

Uterotonic agents for first-line treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more after birth, is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all women giving birth should receive a prophylactic uterotonic agent. Despite the routine administration of a uterotonic agent for prevention, PPH remains a common complication causing one-quarter of all maternal deaths globally. When prevention fails and PPH occurs, further administration of uterotonic agents as 'first-line' treatment is recommended. However, there is uncertainty about which uterotonic agent is best for the 'first-line' treatment of PPH. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) with the least side-effects for PPH treatment, and generate a meaningful ranking among all available agents according to their relative effectiveness and side-effect profile. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 May 2020), and the reference lists of all retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents for the treatment of PPH were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed each trial for risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were additional blood loss of 500 mL or more after recruitment to the trial until cessation of active bleeding and the composite outcome of maternal death or severe morbidity. Secondary outcomes included blood loss-related outcomes, morbidity outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, but due to the limited number of included studies, we were unable to conduct the planned network meta-analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials, involving 3738 women in 10 countries, were included in this review. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Randomised women gave birth vaginally, except in one small trial, where women gave birth either vaginally or by caesarean section. Across the seven trials (14 trial arms) the following agents were used: six trial arms used oxytocin alone; four trial arms used misoprostol plus oxytocin; three trial arms used misoprostol; one trial arm used Syntometrine® (oxytocin and ergometrine fixed-dose combination) plus oxytocin infusion. Pairwise meta-analysis of two trials (1787 participants), suggests that misoprostol, as first-line treatment uterotonic agent, probably increases the risk of blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 2.14, moderate-certainty) compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol administration may increase the incidence of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.00 to 6.64). The data comparing misoprostol with oxytocin is imprecise, with a wide range of treatment effects for the additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.02, low-certainty), maternal death or severe morbidity (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.72, low-certainty, based on one study n = 809 participants, as the second study had zero events), and the use of additional uterotonics (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.94, low-certainty). The risk of side-effects may be increased with the use of misoprostol compared with oxytocin: vomiting (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.37 to 4.47, high-certainty) and fever (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 3.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 18.18, low-certainty). According to pairwise meta-analysis of four trials (1881 participants) generating high-certainty evidence, misoprostol plus oxytocin makes little or no difference to the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05) and to blood transfusion (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17) compared with oxytocin. We cannot rule out an important benefit of using the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination over oxytocin alone, for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06, moderate-certainty). We also cannot rule out important benefits or harms for additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.34, moderate-certainty, 3 trials, 1814 participants, one study reported zero events), and maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.39, moderate-certainty). Misoprostol plus oxytocin increases the incidence of fever (4 trials, 1866 participants, RR 3.07, 95% CI 2.62 to 3.61, high-certainty), and vomiting (2 trials, 1482 participants, RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.95, high-certainty) compared with oxytocin alone. For all outcomes of interest, the available evidence on the misoprostol versus Syntometrine® plus oxytocin combination was of very low-certainty and these effects remain unclear. Although network meta-analysis was not performed, we were able to compare the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination with misoprostol alone through the common comparator of oxytocin. This indirect comparison suggests that the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination probably reduces the risk of blood transfusion (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.99, moderate-certainty) and may reduce the risk of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89, low-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. The combination makes little or no difference to vomiting (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.59, high-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. Misoprostol plus oxytocin compared to misoprostol alone are compatible with a wide range of treatment effects for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.26, low-certainty), maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.24, low-certainty), use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.73, low-certainty), and fever (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.77, low-certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that oxytocin used as first-line treatment of PPH probably is more effective than misoprostol with less side-effects. Adding misoprostol to the conventional treatment of oxytocin probably makes little or no difference to effectiveness outcomes, and is also associated with more side-effects. The evidence for most uterotonic agents used as first-line treatment of PPH is limited, with no evidence found for commonly used agents, such as injectable prostaglandins, ergometrine, and Syntometrine®.

Does water birth affect the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury? Development of a prognostic model.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) is a significant complication of vaginal delivery. Water birth has become a popular preference for women giving birth in the UK, however, there is limited data on the risk of OASI following water birth. Our aim was to assess OASI risk in low-risk women giving birth in water without medical intervention compared with on land and to create a prognostic model for OASI prediction. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 15,734 low-risk women giving birth by spontaneous vaginal delivery between January 2008 and October 2014 in a midwifery-led unit (MLU). Patient factors and delivery data were analysed to identify differences between water and land births. Univariate analysis determined factors that statistically predicted OASI and was then used to create multivariate analysis. Significant multivariate factors were used to create a prognostic model to predict likelihood of OASI. RESULTS: OASI rates were 1.6% on land and 3.3% in water [odds ratio (OR) 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5-2.94). Multivariate analysis confirmed water birth, ethnicity and parity as independent risk factors for OASI (adjusted OR water birth: 1.77 (CI 1.25-2.51). Our prognostic model showed Black and Asian primigravidae following water birth had the highest risk of OASI and white multiparae on land the lowest. CONCLUSION: This study of comparable low-risk women shows an increased risk of OASI following water birth compared with land birth. Use of this prognostic model will help women determine their risk of OASI following birth in water or on land.

Foley catheterisation versus oral misoprostol for induction of labour in hypertensive women in India (INFORM): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Between 62 000 and 77 000 women die annually from pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. Prompt delivery, preferably by the vaginal route, is vital for good maternal and neonatal outcomes. Two low-cost interventions-low-dose oral misoprostol tablets and transcervical Foley catheterisation-are already used in low-resource settings. We aimed to compare the relative risks and benefits of these interventions. METHODS: We undertook this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in two public hospitals in Nagpur, India. Women (aged ≥18 years) who were at 20 weeks' gestation or later with a live fetus and required delivery as a result of pre-eclampsia or hypertension were randomly assigned (1:1), via computer-generated block randomisation (block sizes of four, six, and eight) with concealment by use of opaque, sequentially numbered, sealed envelopes, to receive labour induction with either oral misoprostol 25 µg every 2 h (maximum of 12 doses) or a transcervical Foley catheter (silicone, size 18 F with 30 mL balloon). Randomisation was stratified by study centre. The catheter remained in place until active labour started, the catheter fell out, or 12 h had elapsed. If the catheter did not fall out within 12 h, induction continued with artificial membrane rupture and oxytocin, administered through a micro-drip gravity infusion set. Fetal monitoring was by intermittent auscultation. The primary outcome was vaginal birth within 24 h. Due to the nature of the interventions, masking of participants, study investigators, and care providers to group allocation was not possible. We analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01801410. FINDINGS: Between Dec 20, 2013, and June 29, 2015, we randomly assigned 602 women to induction with misoprostol (n=302) or the Foley catheter (n=300; intention-to-treat population). Vaginal birth within 24 h was more common in women in the misoprostol group than in the Foley catheter group (172 [57·0%] vs 141 [47·0%] women; absolute risk difference 10·0%, 95% CI 2·0-17·9; p=0·0136). Rates of uterine hyperstimulation were low in both the misoprostol and Foley catheter groups (two [0·7%] vs one [0·3%] cases; absolute risk difference 0·3%, 95% CI -0·8 to 1·5; p=0·566) and neonatal deaths did not differ significantly between groups (six [2·0%] vs three [1·0%] neonatal deaths; 1·0, -1·04 to 2·97; p=0·322). 17 serious adverse events (3%) were reported during the study: one case of intrapartum convulsion and one case of disseminated intravascular coagulation (both in the Foley group); ten perinatal deaths, including two stillbirths (both in the Foley catheter group) and eight neonatal deaths (n=5 in the misoprostol group and n=3 in the Foley catheter group); and five of neonatal morbidity, comprising birth asphyxia (n=3), septicaemia (n=1), and neonatal convulsion (n=1). INTERPRETATION: Oral misoprostol was more effective than transcervical Foley catheterisation for induction of labour in women with pre-eclampsia or hypertension. Future studies are required to assess whether oxytocin augmentation following misoprostol can be replaced by regular doses of oral misoprostol tablets. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Department for International Development, and Wellcome Trust Joint Global Health Trials Scheme.

Prenatal reflex DNA screening for trisomies 21, 18, and 13.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine the screening performance of prenatal reflex DNA screening for trisomies 21 (T21), 18 (T18), and 13 (T13) as part of a routine service at five hospitals. METHODS: Women who accepted screening had a first-trimester combined test (pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, free ß-human chorionic gonadotropin, nuchal translucency interpreted with maternal age). Those with a risk of having an affected pregnancy ≥1 in 800 were reflexed to a DNA sequencing test using stored plasma from the original blood sample, thereby avoiding the need to recall them. RESULTS: Of 22,812 women screened (including 106 with affected pregnancies), 2,480 (10.9%) were reflexed to DNA testing; 101/106 were detected (69/73 T21, 24/25 T18, and 8/8 T13), a 95% detection rate (95% confidence interval 89-98%) with four false positives (0.02%, 95% confidence interval 0.00-0.05%). The odds of being affected given a positive result were 25:1. Of the 105 screen-positive pregnancies, 91 (87%) had an invasive diagnostic test. Reflex DNA screening avoided up to 530 invasive diagnostic tests compared with using the combined test. CONCLUSION: Reflex DNA screening was successfully implemented in routine care, achieving a high detection rate, low false-positive rate, and, consequently, greater safety with fewer invasive diagnostic tests than other methods of screening.

Interventions during pregnancy to prevent preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth (PTB) is a major factor contributing to global rates of neonatal death and to longer-term health problems for surviving infants. Both the World Health Organization and the United Nations consider prevention of PTB as central to improving health care for pregnant women and newborn babies. Current preventative clinical strategies show varied efficacy in different populations of pregnant women, frustrating women and health providers alike, while researchers call for better understanding of the underlying mechanisms that lead to PTB. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to summarise all evidence for interventions relevant to the prevention of PTB as reported in Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs). We intended to highlight promising interventions and to identify SRs in need of an update. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2 November 2017) with key words to capture any Cochrane SR that prespecified or reported a PTB outcome. Inclusion criteria focused on pregnant women without signs of preterm labour or ruptured amniotic membranes. We included reviews of interventions for pregnant women irrespective of their risk status. We followed standard Cochrane methods.We applied GRADE criteria to evaluate the quality of SR evidence. We assigned graphic icons to classify the effectiveness of interventions as: clear evidence of benefit; clear evidence of harm; clear evidence of no effect or equivalence; possible benefit; possible harm; or unknown benefit or harm. We defined clear evidence of benefit and clear evidence of harm to be GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a confidence interval (CI) that does not cross the line of no effect. Clear evidence of no effect or equivalence is GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a narrow CI crossing the line of no effect. Possible benefit and possible harm refer to GRADE low-quality evidence with a clear effect (CI does not cross the line of no effect) or GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a wide CI. Unknown harm or benefit refers to GRADE low- or very low-quality evidence with a wide CI. MAIN RESULTS: We included 83 SRs; 70 had outcome data. Below we highlight key results from a subset of 36 SRs of interventions intended to prevent PTB. OUTCOME: preterm birthClear evidence of benefitFour SRs reported clear evidence of benefit to prevent specific populations of pregnant women from giving birth early, including midwife-led continuity models of care versus other models of care for all women; screening for lower genital tract infections for pregnant women less than 37 weeks' gestation and without signs of labour, bleeding or infection; and zinc supplementation for pregnant women without systemic illness. Cervical cerclage showed clear benefit for women with singleton pregnancy and high risk of PTB only.Clear evidence of harmNo included SR reported clear evidence of harm.No effect or equivalenceFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB, bedrest for women with singleton pregnancy and antibiotic prophylaxis during the second and third trimester were of no effect or equivalent to a comparator.Possible benefitFour SRs found possible benefit in: group antenatal care for all pregnant women; antibiotics for pregnant women with asymptomatic bacteriuria; pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation for pregnant women who smoke; and vitamin D supplements alone for women without pre-existing conditions such as diabetes.Possible harmOne SR reported possible harm (increased risk of PTB) with intramuscular progesterone, but this finding is only relevant to women with multiple pregnancy and high risk of PTB. Another review found possible harm with vitamin D, calcium and other minerals for pregnant women without pre-existing conditions. OUTCOME: perinatal deathClear evidence of benefitTwo SRs reported clear evidence of benefit to reduce pregnant women's risk of perinatal death: midwife-led continuity models of care for all pregnant women; and fetal and umbilical Doppler for high-risk pregnant women.Clear evidence of harmNo included SR reported clear evidence of harm.No effect or equivalenceFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB, antibiotic prophylaxis during the second and third trimester was of no effect or equivalent to a comparator.Possible benefitOne SR reported possible benefit with cervical cerclage for women with singleton pregnancy and high risk of PTB.Possible harmOne SR reported possible harm associated with a reduced schedule of antenatal visits for pregnant women at low risk of pregnancy complications; importantly, these women already received antenatal care in settings with limited resources. OUTCOMES: preterm birth and perinatal deathUnknown benefit or harmFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB for any reason including multiple pregnancy, home uterine monitoring was of unknown benefit or harm. For pregnant women at high risk due to multiple pregnancy: bedrest, prophylactic oral betamimetics, vaginal progesterone and cervical cerclage were all of unknown benefit or harm. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practiceThe overview serves as a map and guide to all current evidence relevant to PTB prevention published in the Cochrane Library. Of 70 SRs with outcome data, we identified 36 reviews of interventions with the aim of preventing PTB. Just four of these SRs had evidence of clear benefit to women, with an additional four SRs reporting possible benefit. No SR reported clear harm, which is an important finding for women and health providers alike.The overview summarises no evidence for the clinically important interventions of cervical pessary, cervical length assessment and vaginal progesterone because these Cochrane Reviews were not current. These are active areas for PTB research.The graphic icons we assigned to SR effect estimates do not constitute clinical guidance or an endorsement of specific interventions for pregnant women. It remains critical for pregnant women and their healthcare providers to carefully consider whether specific strategies to prevent PTB will be of benefit for individual women, or for specific populations of women.Implications for researchFormal consensus work is needed to establish standard language for overviews of reviews and to define the limits of their interpretation.Clinicians, researchers and funders must address the lack of evidence for interventions relevant to women at high risk of PTB due to multiple pregnancy.

Protocol for the development of a salutogenic intrapartum core outcome set (SIPCOS).

BACKGROUND: Maternity intrapartum care research and clinical care more often focus on outcomes that minimise or prevent adverse health rather than on what constitutes positive health and wellbeing (salutogenesis). This was highlighted recently in a systematic review of reviews of intrapartum reported outcomes where only 8% of 1648 individual outcomes, from 102 systematic reviews, were agreed as being salutogenically-focused. Added to this is variation in the outcomes measured in individual studies rendering it very difficult for researchers to synthesise, fully, the evidence from studies on a particular topic. One of the suggested ways to address this is to develop and apply an agreed standardised set of outcomes, known as a 'core outcome set' (COS). In this paper we present a protocol for the development of a salutogenic intrapartum COS (SIPCOS) for use in maternity care research and a SIPCOS for measuring in daily intrapartum clinical care. METHODS: The study proposes three phases in developing the final SIPCOSs. Phase one, which is complete, involved the conduct of a systematic review of reviews to identify a preliminary list of salutogenically-focused outcomes that had previously been reported in systematic reviews of intrapartum interventions. Sixteen unique salutogenically-focused outcome categories were identified. Phase two will involve prioritising these outcomes, from the perspective of key stakeholders (users of maternity services, clinicians and researchers) by asking them to rate the importance of each outcome for inclusion in the SIPCOSs. A final consensus meeting (phase three) will be held, bringing international stakeholders together to review the preliminary SIPCOSs resulting from the survey and to agree and finalise the final SIPCOSs for use in future maternity care research and daily clinical care. DISCUSSION: The expectation in developing the SIPCOSs is that they will be collected and reported in all future studies evaluating intrapartum interventions and measured/recorded in future intrapartum clinical care, as routine, alongside other outcomes also deemed important in the context of the study or clinical scenario. Using the SIPCOSs in this way, will promote and encourage standardised measurements of positive health outcomes in maternity care, into the future.

Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: During pregnancy, fetal cells suitable for genetic testing can be obtained from amniotic fluid by amniocentesis (AC), placental tissue by chorionic villus sampling (CVS), or fetal blood. A major disadvantage of second trimester amniocentesis is that the results are available relatively late in pregnancy (after 16 weeks' gestation). Earlier alternatives are chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and early amniocentesis, which can be performed in the first trimester of pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare the safety and accuracy of all types of AC (i.e. early and late) and CVS (e.g. transabdominal, transcervical) for prenatal diagnosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (3 March 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 3 March 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials comparing AC and CVS by either transabdominal or transcervical route. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 16 randomised studies, with a total of 33,555 women, 14 of which were deemed to be at low risk of bias. The number of women included in the trials ranged from 223 to 4606.Studies were categorized into six comparisons: 1. second trimester AC versus control; 2. early versus second trimester AC; 3. CVS versus second trimester AC; 4. CVS methods; 5. Early AC versus CVS; and 6. AC with or without ultrasound.One study compared second trimester AC with no AC (control) in a low risk population (women = 4606). Background pregnancy loss was around 2%. Second trimester AC compared to no testing increased total pregnancy loss by another 1%. The confidence intervals (CI) around this excess risk were relatively large (3.2% versus 2.3 %, average risk ratio (RR) 1.41, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.00; moderate-quality evidence). In the same study, spontaneous miscarriages were also higher (2.1% versus 1.3%; average RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.52; high-quality evidence). The number of congenital anomalies was similar in both groups (2.0% versus 2.2%, average RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.39; moderate-quality evidence).One study (women = 4334) found that early amniocentesis was not a safe early alternative compared to second trimester amniocentesis because of increased total pregnancy losses (7.6% versus 5.9%; average RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61; high-quality evidence), spontaneous miscarriages (3.6% versus 2.5%, average RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.98; moderate-quality evidence), and a higher incidence of congential anomalies, including talipes (4.7% versus 2.7%; average RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.38; high-quality evidence).When pregnancy loss after CVS was compared with second trimester AC, there was a clinically significant heterogeneity in the size and direction of the effect depending on the technique used (transabdominal or transcervical), therefore, the results were not pooled. Only one study compared transabdominal CVS with second trimester AC (women = 2234). They found no clear difference between the two procedures in the total pregnancy loss (6.3% versus 7%; average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.23, low-quality evidence), spontaneous miscarriages (3.0% versus 3.9%; average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.21; low-quality evidence), and perinatal deaths (0.7% versus 0.6%; average RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.51; low-quality evidence). Transcervical CVS may carry a higher risk of pregnancy loss (14.5% versus 11.5%; average RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.81), but the results were quite heterogeneous.Five studies compared transabdominal and transcervical CVS (women = 7978). There were no clear differences between the two methods in pregnancy losses (average RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.65; very low-quality evidence), spontaneous miscarriages (average RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.58; very low-quality evidence), or anomalies (average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.12; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low due to heterogeneity between studies. Transcervical CVS may be more technically demanding than transabdominal CVS, with more failures to obtain sample (2.0% versus 1.1%; average RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.82, moderate-quality evidence).Overall, we found low-quality evidence for outcomes when early amniocentesis was compared to transabdominal CVS. Spontaneous miscarriage was the only outcome supported by moderate-quality evidence, resulting in more miscarriages after early AC compared with transabdominal CVS (2.3% versus 1.3%; average RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.60). There were no clear differences in pregnancy losses (average RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54; low-quality evidence), or anomalies (average RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.30; very low-quality evidence).We found one study that examined AC with or without ultrasound, which evaluated a type of ultrasound-assisted procedure that is now considered obsolete. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Second trimester amniocentesis increased the risk of pregnancy loss, but it was not possible to quantify this increase precisely from only one study, carried out more than 30 years ago.Early amniocentesis was not as safe as second trimester amniocentesis, illustrated by increased pregnancy loss and congenital anomalies (talipes). Transcervical chorionic villus sampling compared with second trimester amniocentesis may be associated with a higher risk of pregnancy loss, but results were quite heterogeneous.Diagnostic accuracy of different methods could not be assessed adequately because of incomplete karyotype data in most studies.

Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal blood flow patterns in fetal circulation detected by Doppler ultrasound may indicate poor fetal prognosis. It is also possible that false positive Doppler ultrasound findings could lead to adverse outcomes from unnecessary interventions, including preterm delivery. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of Doppler ultrasound used to assess fetal well-being in high-risk pregnancies on obstetric care and fetal outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register on 31 March 2017 and checked reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of Doppler ultrasound for the investigation of umbilical and fetal vessels waveforms in high-risk pregnancies compared with no Doppler ultrasound. 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 and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials involving 10,667 women were included. Risk of bias in trials was difficult to assess accurately due to incomplete reporting. None of the evidence relating to our main outcomes was graded as high quality. The quality of evidence was downgraded due to missing information on trial methods, imprecision in risk estimates and heterogeneity. Eighteen of these studies compared the use of Doppler ultrasound of the umbilical artery of the unborn baby with no Doppler or with cardiotocography (CTG). One more recent trial compared Doppler examination of other fetal blood vessels (ductus venosus) with computerised CTG.The use of Doppler ultrasound of the umbilical artery in high-risk pregnancy was associated with fewer perinatal deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98, 16 studies, 10,225 babies, 1.2% versus 1.7 %, number needed to treat (NNT) = 203; 95% CI 103 to 4352, evidence graded moderate). The results for stillbirths were consistent with the overall rate of perinatal deaths, although there was no clear difference between groups for this outcome (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.04; 15 studies, 9560 babies, evidence graded low). Where Doppler ultrasound was used, there were fewer inductions of labour (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99, 10 studies, 5633 women, random-effects, evidence graded moderate) and fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97, 14 studies, 7918 women, evidence graded moderate). There was no comparative long-term follow-up of babies exposed to Doppler ultrasound in pregnancy in women at increased risk of complications.No difference was found in operative vaginal births (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14, four studies, 2813 women), nor in Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.24, seven studies, 6321 babies, evidence graded low). Data for serious neonatal morbidity were not pooled due to high heterogeneity between the three studies that reported it (1098 babies) (evidence graded very low).The use of Doppler to evaluate early and late changes in ductus venosus in early fetal growth restriction was not associated with significant differences in any perinatal death after randomisation. However, there was an improvement in long-term neurological outcome in the cohort of babies in whom the trigger for delivery was either late changes in ductus venosus or abnormalities seen on computerised CTG. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that the use of Doppler ultrasound on the umbilical artery in high-risk pregnancies reduces the risk of perinatal deaths and may result in fewer obstetric interventions. The results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence is not of high quality. Serial monitoring of Doppler changes in ductus venosus may be beneficial, but more studies of high quality with follow-up including neurological development are needed for evidence to be conclusive.

Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cerclage is a well-known surgical procedure carried out during pregnancy. It involves positioning of a suture (stitch) around the neck of the womb (cervix), aiming to give mechanical support to the cervix and thereby reduce risk of preterm birth. The effectiveness and safety of this procedure remains controversial. This is an update of a review last published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the use of cervical stitch in singleton pregnancy at high risk of pregnancy loss based on woman's history and/or ultrasound finding of 'short cervix' and/or physical exam improves subsequent obstetric care and fetal outcome. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 June 2016) and reference lists of identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials of cervical suturing in singleton pregnancies. Cervical stitch was carried out when the pregnancy was considered to be of sufficiently high risk due to a woman's history, a finding of short cervix on ultrasound or other indication determined by physical exam. We included any study that compared cerclage with either no treatment or any alternative intervention. We planned to include cluster-randomised studies but not cross-over trials. We excluded quasi-randomised studies. We included studies reported in abstract form only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes a total of 15 trials (3490 women); three trials were added for this update (152 women). Cerclage versus no cerclageOverall, cerclage probably leads to a reduced risk of perinatal death when compared with no cerclage, although the confidence interval (CI) crosses the line of no effect (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 10 studies, 2927 women; moderate quality evidence). Considering stillbirths and neonatal deaths separately reduced the numbers of events and sample size. Although the relative effect of cerclage is similar, estimates were less reliable with fewer data and assessed as of low quality (stillbirths RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.75; 5 studies, 1803 women; low quality evidence; neonatal deaths before discharge RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.39; 6 studies, 1714 women; low quality evidence). Serious neonatal morbidity was similar with and without cerclage (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.18; 6 studies, 883 women; low-quality evidence). Pregnant women with and without cerclage were equally likely to have a baby discharged home healthy (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.06; 4 studies, 657 women; moderate quality evidence).Pregnant women with cerclage were less likely to have preterm births compared to controls before 37, 34 (average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.89; 9 studies, 2415 women; high quality evidence) and 28 completed weeks of gestation.Five subgroups based on clinical indication provided data for analysis (history-indicated; short cervix based on one-off ultrasound in high risk women; short cervix found by serial scans in high risk women; physical exam-indicated; and short cervix found on scan in low risk or mixed populations). There were too few trials in these clinical subgroups to make meaningful conclusions and no evidence of differential effects. Cerclage versus progesteroneTwo trials (129 women) compared cerclage to prevention with vaginal progesterone in high risk women with short cervix on ultrasound; these trials were too small to detect reliable, clinically important differences for any review outcome. One included trial compared cerclage with intramuscular progesterone (75 women) which lacked power to detect group differences. History indicated cerclage versus ultrasound indicated cerclageEvidence from two trials (344 women) was too limited to establish differences for clinically important outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cervical cerclage reduces the risk of preterm birth in women at high-risk of preterm birth and probably reduces risk of perinatal deaths. There was no evidence of any differential effect of cerclage based on previous obstetric history or short cervix indications, but data were limited for all clinical groups. The question of whether cerclage is more or less effective than other preventative treatments, particularly vaginal progesterone, remains unanswered.