Fetal movement counting for assessment of fetal wellbeing.

BACKGROUND: Fetal movement counting is a method by which a woman quantifies the movements she feels to assess the condition of the baby. The purpose is to try to reduce perinatal mortality by alerting caregivers when the baby might have become compromised. This method may be used routinely, or only in women who are considered at increased risk of complications in the baby. Some clinicians believe that fetal movement counting is a good method as it allows the clinician to make appropriate interventions in good time. On the other hand, fetal movement counting may cause anxiety to women. OBJECTIVES: To assess outcomes of pregnancy where fetal movement counting was done routinely, selectively or was not done at all; and to compare different methods of fetal movement counting. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library) and the reference lists of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials. Trials were excluded where allocation concealment was inadequate and no measures were taken to prevent bias were excluded. The interventions included routine fetal movement counting, selective fetal movement counting, and studies comparing different fetal assessment methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the methodological quality of included studies and extracted data from studies. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies, involving 71,370 women, were included in this review; 68,654 in one cluster-randomised trial. All four trials compared formal fetal movement counting. Two trials compared different types of counting with each other; one with no formal instruction, and one with hormonal analysis. Women in the formal fetal movement counting group had significantly fewer visits to the hospital antenatally than those women randomised to hormone analysis (relative risk (RR) 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.35), whereas there were fewer Apgar scores less than seven in five minutes for women randomised to hormone analysis (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.93). There was a significantly higher compliance with the Cardiff 'count to ten' method than with the formal fetal movement counting method (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.32).All other outcomes reported were non significant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review does not provide enough evidence to influence practice. In particular, no trials compared fetal movement counting with no fetal movement counting. Robust research is needed in this area.

Early compared with delayed oral fluids and food after caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: It is customary for fluids and/or food to be withheld for a period of time after abdominal operations. After caesarean section, practices vary considerably. These discrepancies raise concern as to the bases of different practices. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of early versus delayed introduction of fluids and/or food after caesarean section. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (January 2002) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2001). SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical trials with random allocation comparing early versus delayed oral fluids and/or food after caesarean section were considered. The participants were women within the first 24 hours after caesarean section. The criteria for 'early' feeding were as defined by the individual trial authors - usually within six to eight hours of surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials considered were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion. For dichotomous data, relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Continuous data were compared using weighted mean difference and 95% confidence interval. Sub-group analyses were performed for general anaesthesia, regional analgesia and where anaesthesia was mixed or undefined. MAIN RESULTS: Of 12 studies considered, six were included in this review. Four were excluded and two are pending further information. The methodological quality of the studies was variable. Only one to three studies contributed usable data to each outcome. Three studies were limited to surgery under regional analgesia, while three included both regional analgesia and general anaesthesia. Early oral fluids or food were associated with: reduced time to first food intake (one study, 118 women; the intervention was a slush diet and food was introduced according to clinical parameters; weighted mean difference -7.20 hours, 95% confidence interval -13.26 to -1.14); reduced time to return of bowel sounds (one study, 118 women; -4.30 hours, -6.78 to -1.82); reduced postoperative hospital stay following surgery under regional analgesia (two studies, 220 women; -0.75 days, -1.37 to -0.12 - random effects model); and a trend to reduced abdominal distension (three studies, 369 women; relative risk 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.11). No significant differences were identified with respect to nausea, vomiting, time to bowel action/ passing flatus, paralytic ileus and number of analgesic doses. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence from the limited randomised trials reviewed, to justify a policy of withholding oral fluids after uncomplicated caesarean section. Further research is justified.

Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing hypertensive disorders is not associated with changes in platelet count, urate, and urinary protein: a randomized control trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that calcium supplementation inhibits the underlying pathological processes in women with preeclampsia. METHODS: Seven hundred and eight nulliparous women were enrolled in a WHO randomized double-blind trial, who received 1.5 g of calcium or placebo from 20 weeks of pregnancy or earlier. Platelet count, serum urate, and urinary protein/creatinine ratio were measured at or near 35 gestational weeks. RESULTS: No difference was detected in rates of abnormal platelet count (relative risk [RR] 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 2.18), serum urate level (1.0; 0.64 to 1.57) or urine protein/creatinine ratio (1.01; 0.76 to 1.34). This was consistent with the main trial finding of no difference in the incidence of 'dipstick' proteinuria between women receiving calcium and those receiving placebo (8312 women; RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.15). CONCLUSIONS: An effect of calcium supplementation in the second half of pregnancy on the rate of abnormal laboratory measures associated with preeclampsia was not demonstrated.