Corticosteroids for improving patient-relevant outcomes in HELLP syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We conducted this updated systematic review to assess the effects of corticosteroids vs. placebo or no treatment for improving patient-relevant outcomes in hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome. METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, from the date of inception of the databases to February 3, 2024 were searched. Reference lists of included studies and systematic reviews were thoroughly searched. We included RCTs that enrolled women with HELLP syndrome, whether antepartum or postpartum, to receive any corticosteroid versus placebo or no treatment. No language or publication date restrictions were made. We used a dual independent approach for screening titles and abstracts, full text screening, and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed in the included studies using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool. Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted, where two or more studies met methodological criteria for inclusion. GRADE approach was used to assess certainty of evidence for the pre-specified outcomes. RESULTS: Fifteen trials (821 women) compared corticosteroids with placebo or no treatment. The effect of corticosteroids is uncertain for the primary outcome i.e., maternal death (risk ratio [RR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 2.38, very low certainty evidence). Out of 6 studies reporting maternal death, 5 were judged overall to have "low risk" of bias. The effect of corticosteroids is also uncertain for other important outcomes including pulmonary edema (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.09), dialysis (RR 3, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.78), liver morbidity (hematoma, rupture, and failure; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.83), or perinatal death (0.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.97) because of very low certainty evidence. Low certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids have little or no effect on the need for platelet transfusion (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.60) and may result in a slight reduction in acute renal failure (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.12). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed results that were similar to the primary synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: In women with HELLP syndrome, the effect of corticosteroids vs. placebo or no treatment is uncertain for patient-relevant outcomes including maternal death, maternal morbidity, and perinatal death. These uncertainties regarding this critical question should be addressed by adequately powered rigorous trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Center for Open Science, osf.io/yzku5.

Cervical cancer screening by cytology and the burden of epithelial abnormalities in low resource settings: a tertiary-center 42-year study.

BACKGROUND: Cytological screening remains a high-impact practice, particularly in low-resource settings, for preventing cervical cancer. The examination of screening practices over time and the prevalence of epithelial abnormalities have not been investigated in longitudinal studies in one of the largest countries in the Middle East and Africa. METHODS: Routine healthcare data, between March 1981 and December 2022, were extracted from the database of the Early Cancer Detection Unit in a tertiary referral university hospital in the Greater Cairo Region, Egypt. Cervical smears were obtained using a standardized technique and sent to the cytopathology laboratory for conventional cytology examination by expert pathologists. The anonymous data were analyzed to determine the temporal trend of the number of women screened each year and the prevalence of epithelial abnormalities. RESULTS: Data included the results of satisfactory smears from 95120 women. The mean age (SD) of the women at the time of screening was 38.5 (10.5). None of the included women received an HPV vaccine. Abnormal epithelial cells were reported in 5174 women (5.44%). Of these epithelial abnormalities, the majority were low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in 4144 women (4.36%). Other abnormalities included atypical squamous cells in 378 women (0.40%), high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in 226 women (0.24%), atypical glandular cells not otherwise specified in 184 women (0.19%), adenocarcinoma in 165 women (0.17%), squamous cell carcinoma in 70 women (0.07%), and atypical glandular cells favoring neoplasms in 7 women (0.01%). Women who were at an early age at first intercourse, those who opted for routine cervical cytology screening, and those who were older at screening were more likely to have epithelial abnormalities. The yearly number of screened women was positively associated with the detection of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (correlation coefficient [95% CI] = 0.84 [0.72, 0.91]) and negatively associated with the detection of squamous cell carcinoma (correlation coefficient [95% CI] = -0.55 [-0.73, -0.29]). CONCLUSIONS: The small number of annually screened Egyptian women and the temporal trend in epithelial abnormalities critically demonstrate the need for establishing and scaling up a structured population-based program to achieve the goal of eliminating cervical cancer.

Hydrogel dressings for donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts.

BACKGROUND: Donor site wounds of split-thickness skin grafts can be a major cause of morbidity. Choosing the appropriate dressing for these wounds is crucial to successful healing. Various types of dressing are available, including hydrogel dressings. A review of current evidence is required to guide clinical decision-making on the choice of dressing for the treatment of donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of hydrogel dressings on donor site wounds following split-thickness skin grafts for wound healing. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2022 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL EBSCO Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hydrogel dressings with other types of dressing, topical treatments or no dressing, or with different types of hydrogel dressings in managing donor site wounds irrespective of language and publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently carried out data extraction, risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, RoB 1, and quality assessment according to GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies (162 participants) in this review. One study with three arms and 101 participants (15 months' duration) was conducted in a children's hospital, and compared hydrogel dressings in the form of Sorbact with Algisite, an alginate dressing and Cuticerin, a smooth acetate gauze impregnated with water-repellent ointment. Another study with two arms and 61 participants (19 months' duration) was conducted in three surgery departments and compared an octenidine-containing hydrogel dressing with an identical non-antimicrobial hydrogel dressing. We identified no studies that compared hydrogel dressings with another therapy such as a topical agent (a topical agent is a cream, an ointment or a solution that is applied directly to the wound), or no dressing, or a combination of hydrogel dressings and another therapy versus another therapy alone. Both studies were at high risk of attrition bias and the second study was also at unclear risk of selection bias. Amorphous hydrogel dressings versus other types of dressings Amorphous hydrogel dressings may increase time to wound healing when compared with alginate (mean difference (MD) 1.67 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 2.78; 1 study, 69 participants; low-certainty evidence) or Cuticerin dressings (MD 1.67 days, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.79; 1 study, 68 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect of amorphous hydrogel dressings compared with other types of dressings is uncertain for pain at the donor site and wound complications, including scarring and itching (very low-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in any of the groups. The study did not report health-related quality of life or wound infection. Octenidine-based hydrogel dressing versus octenidine-free hydrogel dressing The effect of octenidine-based hydrogel dressings versus octenidine-free hydrogel dressings is uncertain for time to wound healing (MD 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.52; 1 study, 41 participants) and wound infection, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. The certainty of the evidence is also very low for adverse events, with two participants in the intervention group and one participant in the comparison group reporting adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.89; 1 study, 41 participants). The study did not report donor site pain, health-related quality of life, or wound complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of hydrogel dressings on donor site wounds of split thickness skin grafts compared with other types of dressings. There is a need for adequately powered and well-designed RCTs, with adequate sample sizes, types of populations and subgroups, types of interventions, and outcomes, that compare hydrogel dressings with other treatment options in the treatment of donor site wounds of split-thickness skin grafts.

Implementation strategies, facilitators, and barriers to scaling up and sustaining demand generation in family planning, a mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Demand generation aims to increase clients' desire to use family planning. The aim of this work was to systematically summarize strategies, facilitators, and barriers to scaling up and sustaining demand generation in family planning. METHODS: We searched electronic bibliographic databases from inception to October 2022. We included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods reports on demand generation strategies in family planning, regardless of country, language, publication status, or methodological limitations. We assessed abstracts, titles and full-text papers according to the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of included reports. We used the convergent integrated approach and a deductive thematic synthesis to summarize demand generation themes and subthemes. We used the health system building blocks to synthesize the factors affecting implementation (barriers and facilitators). We used GRADE-CERQual to assess our confidence in the findings. RESULTS: Forty-six studies (published 1990-2022) were included: forty-one quantitative, one qualitative, and four mixed methods). Three were from one high-income country, and forty three from LMIC settings. Half of reports were judged to be of unclear risk of bias. There were unique yet interrelated strategies of scaling-up demand generation for family planning. Interpersonal communication strategies increase adoption and coverage of modern contraceptive methods, but the effect on sustainability is uncertain. Mass media exposure increases knowledge and positive attitudes and may increase the intention to use modern contraceptive methods. Demand-side financing approaches probably increase awareness of contraceptives and the use of modern contraceptive methods among poor clients. Multifaceted Demand generation approaches probably improve adoption, coverage and sustainability of modern methods use. Factors that influence the success of implementing these strategies include users knowledge about family planning methods, the availability of modern methods, and the accessibility to services. CONCLUSIONS: Demand generation strategies may function independently or supplement each other. The myriad of techniques of the different demand generation strategies, the complexities of family planning services, and human interactions defy simplistic conclusions on how a specific strategy or a bundle of strategies may succeed in increasing and sustaining family planning utilization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration: Center for Open Science, osf.io/286j5.

Family planning could prevent one third of maternal deaths by allowing women to delay motherhood, avoid unintended pregnancies and subsequent abortions. Demand generation is one of the critical factors for increasing coverage and sustainability of family planning programs. Demand generation activities aim to increase clients' desire to use family planning by changing their attitudes or perceptions about FP or increasing their awareness or knowledge about FP methods and also by improving access to contraceptive services. Many demand generation activities also aim to shift social and cultural norms to affect individual behavior change. Scaling up demand generation and ensuring that demand for family planning is satisfied is essential for achieving universal access to reproductive health-care services. We systematically searched for and summarized reports of strategies to scale up demand generation for family planning. Available evidence shows that interpersonal communication strategies increase adoption and coverage of modern contraceptive methods, but the effect on sustainability is uncertain. Mass media exposure increases knowledge and positive attitudes and may increase the intention to use modern contraceptive methods. The effect of new media is uncertain. Demand-side financing approach probably increase awareness of contraceptives and the use of modern contraceptive methods among poor women. The most apparent factors influencing the success of implementing these strategies include knowledge about family planning methods, especially regarding side effects and health concerns, the availability of modern contraceptive methods, and the accessibility to family planning services.

Implementation strategies, facilitators, and barriers to scaling up and sustaining post pregnancy family planning, a mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Post pregnancy family planning includes both postpartum and post-abortion periods. Post pregnancy women remain one of the most vulnerable groups with high unmet need for family planning. This review aimed to describe and assess the quality of the evidence on implementation strategies, facilitators, and barriers to scaling up and sustaining post pregnancy family planning. METHODS: Electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Global Index Medicus) were searched from inception to October 2022 for primary quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method reports on scaling up post pregnancy family planning. Abstracts, titles, and full-text papers were assessed according to the inclusion criteria to select studies regardless of country, language, publication status, or methodological limitations. Data were extracted and methodological quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The convergent integrated approach and a deductive thematic synthesis were used to identify themes and sub-themes of strategies to scale up post pregnancy family planning. The health system building blocks were used to summarize barriers and facilitators. GRADE-CERQual was used to assess our confidence in the findings. RESULTS: Twenty-nine reports (published 2005-2022) were included: 19 quantitative, 7 qualitative, and 3 mixed methods. Seven were from high-income countries, and twenty-two from LMIC settings. Sixty percent of studies had an unclear risk of bias. The included reports used either separate or bundled strategies for scaling-up post pregnancy family planning. These included strategies for healthcare infrastructure, policy and regulation, financing, human resource, and people at the point of care. Strategies that target the point of care (women and / or their partners) contributed to 89.66% (26/29) of the reports either independently or as part of a bundle. Point of care strategies increase adoption and coverage of post pregnancy contraceptive methods. CONCLUSION: Post pregnancy family planning scaling up strategies, representing a range of styles and settings, were associated with improved post pregnancy contraceptive use. Factors that influence the success of implementing these strategies include issues related to counselling, integration in postnatal or post-abortion care, and religious and social norms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Center for Open Science, OSF.IO/EDAKM.

Family planning could prevent one third of maternal deaths by allowing women to delay motherhood, avoid unintended pregnancies and subsequent abortions. Post pregnancy family planning includes both postpartum and post-abortion periods. Post pregnancy women remain one of the most vulnerable groups with high unmet need for family planning. Scaling up post pregnancy family planning is essential for achieving universal access to reproductive health-care services. Reports of strategies to scale up post pregnancy family planning were systematically reviewed and summarized. These included strategies for healthcare infrastructure, policy and regulation, financing, human resource, and people at the point of care. Strategies that target the point of care (women and/or their partners) contributed to 89.66% (26/29) of the reports either independently or as part of a bundle. Point of care strategies increase adoption and coverage of post pregnancy contraceptive methods. Certain factors influence the success of implementing these strategies, including issues related to counselling, integration in postnatal or post-abortion care, and religious and social norms.

Self-administered subcutaneous medroxyprogesterone acetate for improving contraceptive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate is an easy-to-use injectable contraceptive. A trained person can administer it, including women through self-injection. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness and safety of self-injection versus provider-administered subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate for improving continuation of contraceptive use. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials on November 1, 2020 in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Open Grey, clinical trials registries, and reference lists of relevant studies. We did not impose any search restrictions. We included randomized trials comparing self- versus provider-administered subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We used risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 3 randomized trials (9 reports; 1264 participants). The risk of bias in the included studies was low except for performance bias and detection bias of participant-reported outcomes in unmasked trials. Self-administration, compared to provider-administration, increased continuation of contraceptive use (risk ratio 1.35; 95% confidence intervals 1.10-1.66); moderate-certainty evidence). Self-injection appears to be making more of an impact on continuation for younger women compared to women 25 years and older and on women living in low and middle income compared to high income countries. There was no subgroup difference by the type of care provider (community health worker vs. clinic-based provider). CONCLUSIONS: Self-injection of subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate probably improves continuation of contraceptive use. The effects on other outcomes remain uncertain because of the very low certainty of evidence.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in people with low surgical risk.

BACKGROUND: Severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The definitive management for severe AS is aortic valve replacement (AVR). The choice of transcatheter approach versus open-heart surgery for AVR in people with severe AS and low surgical risk remains a matter of debate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in people with severe AS and low surgical risk. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on 29 April 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We searched all databases from inception to present and imposed no restriction on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared TAVI and SAVR in adults (18 years of age or older) with severe AS and low surgical risk. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias in the studies included. We analysed dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using the mean difference (MD), with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Our outcomes of interest were assessed in the short term (i.e. during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, and rehospitalisation. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, length of hospital stay (LOS), permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, new-onset atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury (AKI), and any bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four studies (13 reports), with 2818 participants, and one ongoing study. Overall certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. There is probably little or no difference between TAVI and SAVR for the following short-term outcomes: all-cause mortality (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.44; SAVR 11 deaths per 1000, TAVI 8 deaths per 1000 (95% CI 4 to 16); 2818 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); stroke (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.25; SAVR 21 strokes per 1000, TAVI 16 strokes per 1000 (95% CI 9 to 27); 2818 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); MI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.58; SAVR 14 MI per 1000, TAVI 11 MI per 1000 (95% CI 6 to 21); 2748 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); and cardiac death (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.56; SAVR 10 cardiac deaths per 1000, TAVI 7 cardiac deaths per 1000 (95% CI 3 to 16); 2818 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). TAVI may reduce the risk of short-term rehospitalisation, although the confidence interval also includes the possibility of no difference in risk between groups (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06; SAVR 30 cases per 1000, TAVI 19 cases per 1000 (95% CI 12 to 32); 2468 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). TAVI, compared with SAVR, probably increases the risk of PPM implantation (RR 3.65, 95% CI 1.50 to 8.87; SAVR 47 per 1000, TAVI 170 cases per 1000 (95% CI 70 to 413); number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 7; 2683 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether TAVI, compared with SAVR, affects the LOS in days, although it appears to be associated with shorter LOS. TAVI, compared with SAVR, reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.30; 2683 participants; 3 studies), AKI (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.58; 2753 participants; 4 studies), and bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.62; 2753 participants; 4 studies) (all high-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis indicates that, in the short term, TAVI probably has little or no mortality difference compared to SAVR for severe AS in individuals with low surgical risk. Similarly, there is probably little or no difference in risk of stroke, MI, and cardiac death between the two approaches. TAVI may reduce the risk of rehospitalisation, but we are uncertain about the effects on LOS. TAVI reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation, AKI, and bleeding. However, this benefit is offset by the increased risk of PPM implantation. Long-term follow-up data are needed to further assess and validate these outcomes, especially durability, in the low surgical risk population.

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) contributes to half of mortalities caused by CVD. The mainstay of management of CAD is medical therapy and revascularisation. Revascularisation can be achieved via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peripheral arteries, such as the femoral or radial artery, provide the access to the coronary arteries to perform diagnostic or therapeutic (or both) procedures. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in people with CAD undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or PCI (or both). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials on 10 October 2017: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2017. There were no language restrictions. Reference lists were also checked and we contacted authors of included studies for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared transradial and transfemoral approaches in adults (18 years of age or older) undergoing diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) for CAD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were checked by another author. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 31 studies (44 reports) including 27,071 participants and two ongoing studies. The risk of bias in the studies was low or unclear for several domains. Compared to the transfemoral approach, the transradial approach reduced short-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) (i.e. assessed during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.94; 17,133 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiac death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 11,170 participants; 11 studies; moderate quality evidence). However, short-term myocardial infarction was similar between both groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 19,430 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). The transradial approach had a lower procedural success rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98; 25,920 participants; 28 studies; moderate quality evidence), but was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; 18,955 participants; 10 studies; high quality evidence), bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; 23,043 participants; 20 studies; low quality evidence), and access site complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 16,112 participants; 24 studies; low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Transradial approach for diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) in CAD may reduce short-term NACE, cardiac death, all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding the long-term clinical outcomes (i.e. beyond 30 days of follow-up).

The global maternal sepsis study and awareness campaign (GLOSS): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Maternal sepsis is the underlying cause of 11% of all maternal deaths and a significant contributor to many deaths attributed to other underlying conditions. The effective prevention, early identification and adequate management of maternal and neonatal infections and sepsis can contribute to reducing the burden of infection as an underlying and contributing cause of morbidity and mortality. The objectives of the Global Maternal Sepsis Study (GLOSS) include: the development and validation of identification criteria for possible severe maternal infection and maternal sepsis; assessment of the frequency of use of a core set of practices recommended for prevention, early identification and management of maternal sepsis; further understanding of mother-to-child transmission of bacterial infection; assessment of the level of awareness about maternal and neonatal sepsis among health care providers; and establishment of a network of health care facilities to implement quality improvement strategies for better identification and management of maternal and early neonatal sepsis. METHODS: This is a facility-based, prospective, one-week inception cohort study. This study will be implemented in health care facilities located in pre-specified geographical areas of participating countries across the WHO regions of Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, South East Asia, and Western Pacific. During a seven-day period, all women admitted to or already hospitalised in participating facilities with suspected or confirmed infection during any stage of pregnancy through the 42nd day after abortion or childbirth will be included in the study. Included women will be followed during their stay in the facilities until hospital discharge, death or transfer to another health facility. The maximum intra-hospital follow-up period will be 42 days. DISCUSSION: GLOSS will provide a set of actionable criteria for identification of women with possible severe maternal infection and maternal sepsis. This study will provide data on the frequency of maternal sepsis and uptake of effective diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in obstetrics in different hospitals and countries. We will also be able to explore links between interventions and maternal and perinatal outcomes and identify priority areas for action.

Routes of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Post-caesarean section infection is a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for preventing infection after caesarean delivery. The route of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis should be effective, safe and convenient. Currently, there is a lack of synthesised evidence regarding the benefits and harms of different routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to assess the benefits and harms of different routes of prophylactic antibiotics given for preventing infectious morbidity in women undergoing caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two alternative routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section (both elective and emergency). Cross-over trials and quasi-RCTs were not eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies. These steps were checked by a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies (1354 women). The risk of bias was unclear or high in most of the included studies.All of the included trials involved women undergoing caesarean section whether elective or non-elective. Intravenous antibiotics versus antibiotic irrigation (nine studies, 1274 women) Nine studies (1274 women) compared the administration of intravenous antibiotics with antibiotic irrigation. There were no clear differences between groups in terms of this review's maternal primary outcomes: endometritis (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.29; eight studies (966 women) (low-quality evidence)); wound infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.43; seven studies (859 women) (very low-quality evidence)). The outcome of infant sepsis was not reported in the included studies.In terms of this review's maternal secondary outcomes, there were no clear differences between intravenous antibiotic or irrigation antibiotic groups in terms of postpartum febrile morbidity (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.60; three studies (264 women) (very low-quality evidence)); or urinary tract infection (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.15; five studies (660 women) (very low-quality evidence)). In terms of adverse effects of the treatment on the women, no drug allergic reactions were reported in three studies (284 women) (very low-quality evidence), and there were no cases of serious infectious complications reported (very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in terms of maternal length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.28 days, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.79 days, (random-effects analysis), four studies (512 women). No data were reported for the number of women readmitted to hospital. For the baby, there were no data reported in relation to oral thrush, infant length of hospital stay or immediate adverse effects of the antibiotics on the infant. Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis versus oral antibiotic prophylaxis (one study, 80 women) One study (80 women) compared an intravenous versus an oral route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics, but did not report any of this review's primary or secondary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no clear difference between irrigation and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the risk of post-caesarean endometritis. For other outcomes, there is insufficient evidence regarding which route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics is most effective at preventing post-caesarean infections. The quality of evidence was very low to low, mainly due to limitations in study design and imprecision. Furthermore, most of the included studies were underpowered (small sample sizes with few events). Therefore, we advise caution in the interpretation and generalisability of the results.For future research, there is a need for well-designed, properly-conducted, and clearly-reported RCTs. Such studies should evaluate the more recently available antibiotics, elaborating on the various available routes of administration, and exploring potential neonatal side effects of such interventions.

Interventions for acne scars.

BACKGROUND: Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide range of interventions have been proposed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on treatments for acne scars to better inform patients and their healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods of managing this condition. This review aimed to examine treatments for atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars, but we have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for treating acne scars. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated participants (whether split-face or parallel arms) to any active intervention (or a combination) for treating acne scars. We excluded studies dealing only or mostly with keloid scars. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data from each of the studies included in this review and evaluated the risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and arbitration supported by a method expert as required. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 trials with 789 adult participants aged 18 years or older. Twenty trials enrolled men and women, three trials enrolled only women and one trial enrolled only men. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. With regard to blinding we judged 17 studies to be at high risk of performance bias, because the participants and dermatologists were not blinded to the treatments administered or received; however, we judged all 24 trials to be at a low risk of detection bias for outcome assessment. We evaluated 14 comparisons of seven interventions and four combinations of interventions. Nine studies provided no usable data on our outcomes and did not contribute further to this review's results.For our outcome 'Participant-reported scar improvement' in one study fractional laser was more effective in producing scar improvement than non-fractional non-ablative laser at week 24 (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 12.84; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); fractional laser showed comparable scar improvement to fractional radiofrequency in one study at week eight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.68; n = 40; very low-quality evidence) and was comparable to combined chemical peeling with skin needling in a different study at week 48 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; n = 26; very low-quality evidence). In a further study chemical peeling showed comparable scar improvement to combined chemical peeling with skin needling at week 32 (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.75; n = 20; very low-quality evidence). Chemical peeling in one study showed comparable scar improvement to skin needling at week four (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; n = 27; very low-quality evidence). In another study, injectable fillers provided better scar improvement compared to placebo at week 24 (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; n = 147 moderate-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Serious adverse effects' in one study chemical peeling was not tolerable in 7/43 (16%) participants (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 90.14; n = 58; very low-quality evidence).For our secondary outcome 'Participant-reported short-term adverse events', all participants reported pain in the following studies: in one study comparing fractional laser to non-fractional non-ablative laser (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); in another study comparing fractional laser to combined peeling plus needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; n = 25; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling plus needling to chemical peeling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; n = 20; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling to skin needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; n = 27; very low-quality evidence); and also in a study comparing injectable filler and placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.10 to 11.10; n = 147; low-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Investigator-assessed short-term adverse events', fractional laser (6/32) was associated with a reduced risk of hyperpigmentation than non-fractional non-ablative laser (10/32) in one study (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); chemical peeling was associated with increased risk of hyperpigmentation (6/12) compared to skin needling (0/15) in one study (RR 16.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 258.36; n = 27; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the reported adverse events with injectable filler (17/97) compared to placebo (13/50) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; n = 147; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions for treating acne scars because of poor methodology, underpowered studies, lack of standardised improvement assessments, and different baseline variables.There is moderate-quality evidence that injectable filler might be effective for treating atrophic acne scars; however, no studies have assessed long-term effects, the longest follow-up being 48 weeks in one study only. Other studies included active comparators, but in the absence of studies that establish efficacy compared to placebo or sham interventions, it is possible that finding no evidence of difference between two active treatments could mean that neither approach works. The results of this review do not provide support for the first-line use of any intervention in the treatment of acne scars.Although our aim was to identify important gaps for further primary research, it might be that placebo and or sham trials are needed to establish whether any of the active treatments produce meaningful patient benefits over the long term.

High feedback versus low feedback of prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal ultrasound is one of many techniques used in screening and diagnosis. It gives parents instant access to the images of the fetus. Receiving information promotes knowledge and understanding, but it may also increase maternal anxiety. OBJECTIVES: To compare high feedback versus low feedback during prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (12 May 2015), the Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 12 May 2015), and the ISRCTN Registry (12 May 2015). We handsearched citation lists of relevant publications. We did not apply any language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of high feedback (women can see the monitor screen and receive detailed visual and verbal explanations) versus low feedback (women can not see the monitor screen and women are given only a summary statement of the scan) during prenatal ultrasound. The primary outcome measure was maternal state anxiety. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. We have expressed results as risk ratio (RR) or mean differences (MD), together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies (365 women). Three RCTs (346 participants) reported the effect of high versus low feedback during ultrasound on state anxiety scores (mean difference (MD) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.58 to 2.43; participants = 346; three studies, low quality evidence). Two trials (148 participants) reported women's views of the level of feedback. They do not show that women in the high feedback groups are more likely to choose very positive adjectives to describe their feelings after the scan (risk ratio (RR) 3.30; 95% CI 0.73 to 14.85). Women who had a high feedback during ultrasound were more likely to stop smoking during pregnancy (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.25 to 6.86; participants = 129; one study; low quality evidence) and to avoid alcohol during pregnancy (RR 2.96, 95% CI 1.15 to 7.60; participants = 129; one study; low quality evidence). Downgrading of evidence was based on the unclear risk of bias of included studies, wide CI crossing the line of no effect or presence of heterogeneity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support either high or low feedback during a prenatal ultrasound to reduce maternal anxiety and promote health behaviour.

Strategies for optimising early detection and obstetric first response management of postpartum haemorrhage at caesarean birth: a modified Delphi-based international expert consensus.

OBJECTIVE: There are no globally agreed on strategies on early detection and first response management of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) during and after caesarean birth. Our study aimed to develop an international expert's consensus on evidence-based approaches for early detection and obstetric first response management of PPH intraoperatively and postoperatively in caesarean birth. DESIGN: Systematic review and three-stage modified Delphi expert consensus. SETTING: International. POPULATION: Panel of 22 global experts in PPH with diverse backgrounds, and gender, professional and geographic balance. OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement or disagreement on strategies for early detection and first response management of PPH at caesarean birth. RESULTS: Experts agreed that the same PPH definition should apply to both vaginal and caesarean birth. For the intraoperative phase, the experts agreed that early detection should be accomplished via quantitative blood loss measurement, complemented by monitoring the woman's haemodynamic status; and that first response should be triggered once the woman loses at least 500 mL of blood with continued bleeding or when she exhibits clinical signs of haemodynamic instability, whichever occurs first. For the first response, experts agreed on immediate administration of uterotonics and tranexamic acid, examination to determine aetiology and rapid initiation of cause-specific responses. In the postoperative phase, the experts agreed that caesarean birth-related PPH should be detected primarily via frequently monitoring the woman's haemodynamic status and clinical signs and symptoms of internal bleeding, supplemented by cumulative blood loss assessment performed quantitatively or by visual estimation. Postoperative first response was determined to require an individualised approach. CONCLUSION: These agreed on proposed approaches could help improve the detection of PPH in the intraoperative and postoperative phases of caesarean birth and the first response management of intraoperative PPH. Determining how best to implement these strategies is a critical next step.

Diagnostic accuracy of endometrial sampling tests for detecting endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of different endometrial sampling tests for detecting endometrial carcinoma. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of diagnostic accuracy. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus, from the date of inception of the databases to 18 January 2023. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and other systematic reviews were thoroughly searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included published cross-sectional studies that evaluated any endometrial sampling test (index tests) in women (participants) with clinical suspicion of endometrial carcinoma (target condition) in comparison with histopathology of hysterectomy specimens (reference standard). We excluded case-control and case series studies. No restrictions on language or date of publication were applied. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted study data and assessed study quality using the revised quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2). We used bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis and presented the results in a summary receiver operating characteristic curve. We assessed the certainty of evidence as recommended by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach. RESULTS: Twelve studies (1607 participants), published between 1986 and 2022, contributed data to the meta-analysis results. Seven studies were judged to be at a low risk of bias in all domains and all studies had low applicability concerns. The most studied index tests were Pipelle and conventional dilation and curettage (D&C). The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio (95% CIs) for Pipelle were 0.774 (0.565 to 0.900), 0.985 (0.927 to 0.997), 97.000 (14.000 to 349.000) and 0.241 (0.101 to 0.442) and for conventional D&C were 0.880 (0.281 to 0.993), 0.984 (0.956 to 0.995), 59.300 (14.200 to 153.000) and 0.194 (0.007 to 0.732), respectively. CONCLUSION: High certainty evidence indicates that endometrial sampling using Pipelle or conventional D&C is accurate in diagnosing endometrial cancer. Studies assessing other endometrial sampling tests were sparse. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://osf.io/h8e9z.

Low-Value Surgical Procedures in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Importance: Overuse of surgical procedures is increasing around the world and harms both individuals and health care systems by using resources that could otherwise be allocated to addressing the underuse of effective health care interventions. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is some limited country-specific evidence showing that overuse of surgical procedures is increasing, at least for certain procedures. Objectives: To assess factors associated with, extent and consequences of, and potential solutions for low-value surgical procedures in LMICs. Evidence Review: We searched 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Global Index Medicus) for studies published from database inception until April 27, 2022, with no restrictions on date or language. A combination of MeSH terms and free-text words about the overuse of surgical procedures was used. Studies examining the problem of overuse of surgical procedures in LMICs were included and categorized by major focus: the extent of overuse, associated factors, consequences, and solutions. Findings: Of 4276 unique records identified, 133 studies across 63 countries were included, reporting on more than 9.1 million surgical procedures (median per study, 894 [IQR, 97-4259]) and with more than 11.4 million participants (median per study, 989 [IQR, 257-6857]). Fourteen studies (10.5%) were multinational. Of the 119 studies (89.5%) originating from single countries, 69 (58.0%) were from upper-middle-income countries and 30 (25.2%) were from East Asia and the Pacific. Of the 42 studies (31.6%) reporting extent of overuse of surgical procedures, most (36 [85.7%]) reported on unnecessary cesarean delivery, with estimated rates in LMICs ranging from 12% to 81%. Evidence on other surgical procedures was limited and included abdominal and percutaneous cardiovascular surgical procedures. Consequences of low-value surgical procedures included harms and costs, such as an estimated US $3.29 billion annual cost of unnecessary cesarean deliveries in China. Associated factors included private financing, and solutions included social media campaigns and multifaceted interventions such as audits, feedback, and reminders. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found growing evidence of overuse of surgical procedures in LMICs, which may generate significant harm and waste of limited resources; the majority of studies reporting overuse were about unnecessary cesarean delivery. Therefore, a better understanding of the problems in other surgical procedures and a robust evaluation of solutions are needed.

Indicators of infertility and fertility care: a systematic scoping review.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the scope of literature regarding infertility and fertility care indicators in terms of types and dimensions of these indicators? SUMMARY ANSWER: Most available infertility and fertility care indicators are outcomes indicators of effectiveness and efficiency dimensions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The use of appropriate, relevant and valid indicators of infertility and fertility care is critical for monitoring access, equity and utilization. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A systematic scoping review was conducted. We searched MEDLINE, Pubmed, JSTOR, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases from inception to May 2022 without imposing language or date restrictions. We searched gray literature and online libraries of relevant organizations. We hand-searched the list of relevant references. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: This scoping systematic review followed the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Records identified by the search were independently screened and data were extracted. We performed conceptual synthesis by grouping the reported indicators by typology and dimensions. Structured tabulation and graphical synthesis were used along with narrative commentary. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included 46 reports from 88 countries. The reporting of infertility and fertility care indicators was voluntary in 63 countries (72%) and compulsory in 25 countries (28%). Reporting for cycles or deliveries was based on individual cycles in 56 countries (64%) and on cumulative cycles in 32 countries (36%). Most indicators were utilized as outcome indicators with fewer being process indicators or structural indicators. For the dimension of indicators, most indicators were utilized as effectiveness and efficiency indicators with fewer utilized as indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Most indicators fall into the domain of assisted reproductive technology and are reported by fertility clinics. Indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness as well as non-clinical indicators are almost invisible. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A wide range of indicators of infertility and fertility care exist in literature. Most indicators were effectiveness and efficiency indicators, while indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness remain almost invisible. The scope of the current indicators indicates a predominant focus on clinical metrics, with substantial invisibility of non-clinical indicators and indicators outside the ART domain. These gaps need to be considered in further work of identifying a core set of indicators. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work received funding from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored program executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The authors had no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework vsu42.

World Health Organization Recommendation for Using Uterine Balloon Tamponade to Treat Postpartum Hemorrhage.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently published a new recommendation on the use of the uterine balloon tamponade for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage. The recommendation that uterine balloon tamponade should be used only where there is already access to other postpartum hemorrhage treatments (including immediate recourse to surgery) has proved controversial. It is especially problematic for those working in low-level health care facilities in under-resourced settings, where there are already programs that have introduced low-cost uterine balloon tamponade devices for use, even in settings where recourse to surgical interventions is not possible. However, there are now two separate randomized trials that both unexpectedly show unfavorable outcomes in these settings when a condom catheter uterine balloon tamponade device was introduced. Considering the balance of potential benefits and these safety concerns, the WHO postpartum hemorrhage guideline panel therefore recommends that uterine balloon tamponade should be used only in contexts where other supportive postpartum hemorrhage interventions are available if needed.

Tight control of mild-moderate pre-existing or non-proteinuric gestational hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The question of the target blood pressure in pregnant women with mild-moderate hypertension continues to be an area of debate. OBJECTIVES: To compare tight versus very tight control of mild-moderate pre-existing or non-proteinuric gestational hypertension for improving outcomes SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2011), and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (31 March 2011). We handsearched citation lists of relevant publications, review articles, and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of tight versus very tight control in pregnant women with mild or moderate pre-existing or non-proteinuric gestational hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We expressed results as risk ratio (RR) or mean differences, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies (256 participants) with mild-moderate pre-existing or non-proteinuric gestational hypertension. There was no evidence of a difference between tight and very tight control groups regarding severe pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.70; two trials, 256 participants). More women in the tight group were hospitalized during their pregnancy (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.14 to 5.63; one trial, 125 participants). There was no evidence of a difference in other outcome measures including fetal distress, IUGR, neonatal admission to a NICU, perinatal deaths, induction of labor and cesarean delivery between the tight and the very tight control groups. Gestational age at delivery had a non-significant mean difference (MD) of -0.15 weeks between the tight and very tight control groups (MD -0.15, 95% CI -1.52 to 1.21, random-effects, T² = 0.75, I² = 77%; two trials, 256 participants). The MD in birthweight between the tight and the very tight control group was not significant (MD -100.00 grams, 95% CI -363.69 to 163.69; one trial, 125 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For pregnant women with non-severe pre-existing or non-proteinuric gestational hypertension, there is insufficient evidence to determine how tight control of hypertension should be achieved to improve maternal and fetal-neonatal outcomes.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of HPV tests for the screening of cervical cancer in low-resource settings.

BACKGROUND: HPV tests for the screening of cervical cancer in low-income countries (LICs) might improve early detection and preventive efforts. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HPV tests for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) in LICs. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases were searched on June 1, 2020. References of relevant studies were hand-searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Diagnostic test accuracy studies were included if women had an HPV test for cervical cancer screening, followed by verification with colposcopy and colposcopy-directed biopsy. The primary target was CIN2+. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis was used. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies including 82 556 women were eligible, most of which were at low risk of bias. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio of hybrid capture test of samples collected from the cervix by healthcare providers for detecting CIN2+ and CIN3+ was 42.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.7-76.3) and 97.1 (95% CI 35.3-215.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence indicates that hybrid capture tests can be used for screening of cervical cancer in LICs. Future studies are warranted for self-sampling and for low-cost HPV tests.

High feedback versus low feedback of prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal ultrasound is one of many techniques used in screening and diagnosis. It gives parents instant access to the images of the fetus. Receiving information promotes knowledge and understanding, but it may also increase maternal anxiety. OBJECTIVES: To compare high feedback versus low feedback during prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2010), the Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 1 March 2010), and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (March 2010). We handsearched citation lists of relevant publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of high feedback (women can see the monitor screen and receive detailed visual and verbal explanations) versus low feedback (women can not see the monitor screen and women are given only a summary statement of the scan) during prenatal ultrasound. The primary outcome measure was maternal state anxiety. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We have expressed results as risk ratio (RR) or mean differences, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies (365 women). Three RCTs(346 participants) reported the effect of high versus low feedback during ultrasound on state anxiety scores (mean difference 0.92, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.43). Two trials (148 participants) reported women's views of the level of feedback. They do not show that women in the high feedback groups are more likely to choose very positive adjectives to describe their feelings after the scan (RR 3.30; 95% CI 0.73 to 14.85). Women who had a high feedback during ultrasound were more likely to stop smoking during pregnancy (one trial, 129 participants; RR 2.93; 95% CI 1.25 to 6.86) and to avoid alcohol during pregnancy (one trial, 129 participants; RR 2.96; 95% CI 1.15 to 7.60). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support either high or low feedback during a prenatal ultrasound to reduce maternal anxiety and promote health behaviour.