Third stage of labor: evidence-based practice for prevention of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

The third stage of labor is defined as the time period between delivery of the fetus through delivery of the placenta. During a normal third stage, uterine contractions lead to separation and expulsion of the placenta from the uterus. Postpartum hemorrhage is a relatively common complication of the third stage of labor. Strategies have been studied to mitigate the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, leading to the widespread implementation of active management of the third stage of labor. Initially, active management of the third stage of labor consisted of a bundle of interventions including administration of a uterotonic agent, early cord clamping, controlled cord traction, and external uterine massage. However, the effectiveness of these interventions as a bundle has been questioned, leading to abandonment of some components in recent years. Despite this, upon review of selected international guidelines, we found that the term "active management of the third stage of labor" was still used, but recommendations for and against individual interventions were variable and not necessarily supported by current evidence. In this review, we: (1) examine the physiology of the third stage of labor, (2) present evidence related to interventions that prevent postpartum hemorrhage and promote maternal and neonatal health, (3) review current global guidelines and recommendations for practice, and (4) propose future areas of investigation. The interventions in this review include pharmacologic agents to prevent postpartum hemorrhage, cord clamping, cord milking, cord traction, cord drainage, early skin-to-skin contact, and nipple stimulation. Treatment of complications of the third stage of labor is outside of the scope of this review. We conclude that current evidence supports the use of effective pharmacologic postpartum hemorrhage prophylaxis, delayed cord clamping, early skin-to-skin contact, and controlled cord traction at delivery when feasible. The most effective uterotonic regimens for preventing postpartum hemorrhage after vaginal delivery include oxytocin plus ergometrine; oxytocin plus misoprostol; or carbetocin. After cesarean delivery, carbetocin or oxytocin as a bolus are the most effective regimens. There is inconsistent evidence regarding the use of tranexamic acid in addition to a uterotonic compared with a uterotonic alone for postpartum hemorrhage prevention after all deliveries. Because of differences in patient comorbidities, costs, and availability of resources and staff, decisions to use specific prevention strategies are dependent on patient- and system-level factors. We recommend that the term "active management of the third stage of labor" as a combined intervention no longer be used. Instead, we recommend that "third stage care" be adopted, which promotes the implementation of evidence-based interventions that incorporate practices that are safe and beneficial for both the woman and neonate.

How does hospital organisation influence the use of caesarean sections in low- and middle-income countries? A cross-sectional survey in Argentina, Burkina Faso, Thailand and Vietnam for the QUALI-DEC project.

BACKGROUND: Improving the understanding of non-clinical factors that lead to the increasing caesarean section (CS) rates in many low- and middle-income countries is currently necessary to meet the challenge of implementing effective interventions in hospitals to reverse the trend. The objective of this study was to study the influence of organizational factors on the CS use in Argentina, Vietnam, Thailand and Burkina Faso. METHODS: A cross-sectional hospital-based postpartum survey was conducted in 32 hospitals (8 per country). We selected women with no potential medical need for CS among a random sample of women who delivered at each of the participating facilities during the data collection period. We used multilevel multivariable logistic regression to analyse the association between CS use and organizational factors, adjusted on women's characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 2,092 low-risk women who had given birth in the participating hospitals were included. The overall CS rate was 24.1%, including 4.9% of pre-labour CS and 19.3% of intra-partum CS. Pre-labour CS was significantly associated with a 24-hour anaesthetist dedicated to the delivery ward (ORa = 3.70 [1.41; 9.72]) and with the possibility to have an individual room during labour and delivery (ORa = 0.28 [0.09; 0.87]). Intra-partum CS was significantly associated with a higher bed occupancy level (ORa = 1.45 [1.09; 1.93]): intrapartum CS rate would increase of 6.3% points if the average number of births per delivery bed per day increased by 10%. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that organisational norms and convenience associated with inadequate use of favourable resources, as well as the lack of privacy favouring women's preference for CS, and the excessive workload of healthcare providers drive the CS overuse in these hospitals. It is also crucial to enhance human and physical resources in delivery rooms and the organisation of intrapartum care to improve the birth experience and the working environment for those providing care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The QUALI-DEC trial is registered on the Current Controlled Trials website ( https://www.isrctn.com/ ) under the number ISRCTN67214403.

School-based comprehensive sexuality education for prevention of adolescent pregnancy: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent pregnancy is a global public health problem. Numerous approaches for Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) delivery in schools have been implemented around the world. Previous reviews on CSE did not follow the International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (ITGSE) because CSE is very diverse in terms of population, interventions, settings and outcomes. We conducted this scoping review to identify and map the evidence of school-based CSE for prevention of adolescent pregnancy with emphasis on adolescents' contraceptive use, unintended pregnancy and abortion. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, and WHO ICTRP to identify potential eligible studies from their inception to 4th Nov 2023.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of CSE implemented in public or private schools for adolescents. CSE was defined as a multi-session intervention in school that covered topics including contraception, pregnancy, abortion, and HIV/STI. School-based interventions were the main intervention that may be either stand-alone or multicomponent. There was no limitation on study's geographical area, but only English-language studies were considered. Two reviewers selected and extracted data independently, discussed for consensus or consulted the third reviewer if there were discrepancies for final conclusion. Data were presented using figures, map and table. RESULTS: Out of 5897 records, 79 studies (101 reports) were included in this review. Most studies were conducted in the United States and other high-income countries in secondary or high schools with cluster RCTs. All studies included participatory methods. Almost all studies included Sexual and Reproductive Health which is the eighth concept of CSE. Very few studies reported the prespecified primary outcomes of contraceptive use during last sex, unintended pregnancy and abortion and hence this highlighted the gaps of available evidence for these outcomes. The number of concepts, components, duration and providers of CSE varied across the included studies. However, none of the interventions identified in this scoping review adhered to the ITGSE recommended approach. CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review shows gaps in school-based CSE implementation in terms of completeness of concepts, components, providers, duration and outcomes recommended by ITGSE.

A research agenda to improve incidence and outcomes of assisted vaginal birth.

Access to emergency obstetric care, including assisted vaginal birth and caesarean birth, is crucial for improving maternal and childbirth outcomes. However, although the proportion of births by caesarean section has increased during the last few decades, the use of assisted vaginal birth has declined. This is particularly the case in low- and middle-income countries, despite an assisted vaginal birth often being less risky than caesarean birth. We therefore conducted a three-step process to identify a research agenda necessary to increase the use of, or reintroduce, assisted vaginal birth: after conducting an evidence synthesis, which informed a consultation with technical experts who proposed an initial research agenda, we sought and incorporated the views of women's representatives of this agenda. This process has allowed us to identify a comprehensive research agenda, with topics categorized as: (i) the need to understand women's perceptions of assisted vaginal birth, and provide appropriate and reliable information; (ii) the importance of training health-care providers in clinical skills but also in respectful care, effective communication, shared decision-making and informed consent; and (iii) the barriers to and facilitators of implementation and sustainability. From women's feedback, we learned of the urgent need to recognize labour, childbirth and postpartum experiences as inherently physiological and dignified human processes, in which interventions should only be implemented if necessary. The promotion and/or reintroduction of assisted vaginal birth in low-resource settings requires governments, policy-makers and hospital administrators to support skilled health-care providers who can, in turn, respectfully support women in labour and childbirth.

L'accès aux soins obstétriques d'urgence, y compris l'accouchement vaginal assisté et la césarienne, est essentiel pour améliorer les effets de la maternité et de l'accouchement. Toutefois, bien que la proportion de césariennes ait augmenté ces dernières décennies, le recours à l'accouchement vaginal assisté a diminué. C'est particulièrement le cas dans les pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire, bien que l'accouchement vaginal assisté soit souvent moins risqué qu'une césarienne. Nous avons donc mené un processus en trois étapes afin d'imaginer un programme de recherche qui permettrait d'augmenter le recours à l'accouchement vaginal assisté ou de le réintroduire. Après avoir réalisé une synthèse des données probantes, qui a servi de base à une consultation avec des experts techniques qui ont proposé un programme de recherche initial, nous avons sollicité et incorporé les avis des représentantes des femmes pour ce programme. Ce processus nous a permis d'imaginer un programme de recherche complet, avec des sujets classés comme suit: (i) la nécessité de comprendre la perception qu'ont les femmes de l'accouchement vaginal assisté et de fournir des informations appropriées et fiables; (ii) l'importance de la formation des prestataires de soins de santé en matière de compétences cliniques, mais aussi de respect dans les soins de santé, de communication efficace, de prise de décision partagée et de consentement éclairé; ou (iii) les obstacles à la mise en œuvre et à la durabilité et les facteurs qui les facilitent. Les réactions de femmes nous ont appris qu'il était urgent de reconnaître que l'accouchement, la naissance et le post-partum sont des processus humains intrinsèquement physiologiques et dignes au cours desquels les interventions ne devraient être mises en œuvre qu'en cas de nécessité. La promotion et/ou la réintroduction de l'accouchement vaginal assisté dans les régions à faibles ressources nécessitent que les pouvoirs publics, les décideurs politiques et les administrations d'hôpitaux soutiennent les prestataires de soins de santé qualifiés, qui pourront à leur tour soutenir respectueusement les femmes pendant l'accouchement.

El acceso a la atención obstétrica de emergencia, incluido el parto vaginal asistido y el parto por cesárea, es crucial para mejorar los resultados de la maternidad y el parto. No obstante, aunque el porcentaje de partos por cesárea ha aumentado en las últimas décadas, el uso del parto vaginal asistido ha disminuido. Esto ocurre especialmente en los países de ingresos bajos y medios, a pesar de que un parto vaginal asistido suele ser menos arriesgado que un parto por cesárea. Por lo tanto, llevamos a cabo un proceso de tres pasos para identificar un programa de investigación necesario para aumentar el uso del parto vaginal asistido o volver a incorporarlo: tras realizar una síntesis de la evidencia, que sirvió de base para una consulta con expertos técnicos que propusieron un programa de investigación inicial, buscamos e integramos las opiniones de las representantes de las mujeres sobre este programa. Este proceso nos ha permitido identificar un programa de investigación exhaustivo, con temas categorizados como: (i) la necesidad de comprender las percepciones de las mujeres sobre el parto vaginal asistido, y proporcionar información adecuada y fiable; (ii) la importancia de formar a los profesionales sanitarios en habilidades clínicas, pero también en atención respetuosa, comunicación efectiva, toma de decisiones compartida y consentimiento informado; o (iii) las barreras y los facilitadores de la implementación y la sostenibilidad. A partir de las opiniones de las mujeres, nos enteramos de la urgente necesidad de reconocer las experiencias del parto, el alumbramiento y el posparto como procesos humanos inherentemente fisiológicos y dignos, en los que las intervenciones solo deben aplicarse si son necesarias. La promoción o la reincoporación del parto vaginal asistido en regiones de escasos recursos exige que los gobiernos, los responsables de formular políticas y los administradores de hospitales apoyen a los profesionales sanitarios capacitados que, a su vez, pueden ayudar a las mujeres en el trabajo de parto y el alumbramiento de manera respetuosa.

"Because it eases my Childbirth Plan": a qualitative study on factors contributing to preferences for caesarean section in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Although caesarean section (CS) rates have increased rapidly in Thailand, the upward trend is not supported by significant maternal or perinatal health benefits. The appropriate use of CS through QUALIty DECision-making by women and providers (QUALI-DEC project) aims to design and implement a strategy to optimize the use of CS through non-clinical interventions. This study aimed to explore the factors influencing women's and health professionals' preferences for CS delivery in Thailand. METHODS: We conducted a formative qualitative study by using semi-structured in-depth interviews with pregnant and postpartum women, and healthcare staff. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from eight hospitals across four regions of Thailand. Content analysis was used to develop the main themes. RESULTS: There were 78 participants, including 27 pregnant and 25 postpartum women, 8 administrators, 13 obstetricians, and 5 interns. We identified three main themes and seven sub-themes of women and healthcare providers' perceptions on CS: (1) avoiding the negative experiences from vaginal birth (the pain of labor and childbirth, uncertainty during the labor period); (2) CS is a safer mode of birth (guarantees the baby's safety, a protective shield for doctors); and (3) CS facilitates time management (baby's destiny at an auspicious time, family's management, manage my work/time). CONCLUSIONS: Women mentioned negative experiences and beliefs about vaginal delivery, labor pain, and uncertain delivery outcomes as important factors influencing CS preferences. On the other hand, CS is safer for babies and facilitates multiple tasks in women's lives. From health professionals' perspectives, CS is the easier and safer method for patients and them. Interventions to reduce unnecessary CS, including QUALI-DEC, should be designed and implemented, taking into consideration the perceptions of both women and healthcare providers.

Interventions to increase the uptake of cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To identify effective interventions to increase the uptake of cervical cancer screening (CCS) for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, ISI Web of Sciences, Scopus, OVID (Medline), CINAHL, LILACS, CNKI and OpenGrey for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs conducted in LMICs from January 2000 to September 2021. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were conducted for data synthesis. RESULTS: We included 38 reports of 24 studies involving 318,423 participants from 15 RCTs and nine cluster RCTs. Single interventions may increase uptake of CCS when compared with control (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.82). Self-sampling of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing may increase uptake of CCS relative to routine Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.25). Reminding with phone call may increase uptake of CCS than letter (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.32) and SMS (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.13). Sending 15 health messages may increase uptake of CCS relative to one SMS (RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.46 to 5.19). Free subsidized cost may increase uptake of CCS slightly than $0.66 subsidized cost (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.33). Community based HPV test may increase uptake of CCS slightly in compared to hospital collected HPV (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.82). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combined interventions on CCS uptake relative to single intervention (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.14). CONCLUSIONS: Single interventions including reminding with phone call, SMS, community self-sampling of HPV test, and free subsidized services may enhance CCS uptake. Combined interventions, including health education interventions and SMS plus e-voucher, may be better than single intervention. Due to low-certainty evidences, these findings should be applied cautiously.

Immediate versus delayed postabortal insertion of contraceptive implant.

BACKGROUND: Contraceptive implants are one of the most effective contraceptive methods, providing a long duration of pregnancy protection and a high safety profile. Hence this method is suitable for optimizing the interpregnancy interval, especially for women undergoing abortion. Women who have had abortions are at high risk of rapid repeat pregnancies. Provision of effective contraception at the time of an abortion visit can be a key strategy to increase access and uptake of contraception. A review of the evidence was needed to evaluate progestin-releasing implants for immediate use at the time of abortion, including whether immediate placement impacts the effectiveness of medical abortion, which relies on antiprogestogens. OBJECTIVES: To compare contraceptive implant initiation rates, contraceptive effectiveness, and adverse outcomes associated with immediate versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implants following abortion. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status up to September 2019, with an update search in March 2021. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Ovid EBM Reviews), MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Global Health (Ovid), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We examined the reference lists of pertinent articles to identify other studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implant for contraception following abortion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard procedures recommended by Cochrane. To identify potentially relevant studies, two review authors (JS, LS) independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the search results, assessed trials for risk of bias, and extracted data. We computed the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous variables. MAIN RESULTS: We found three RCTs including a total of 1162 women. Our GRADE assessment of the overall certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Utilization rate at six months may be slightly higher for immediate compared with delayed insertion (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; 3 RCTs; 1103 women; I2 = 62%; low certainty evidence). Unintended pregnancy within six months after abortion was probably lower with immediate insertion compared with delayed insertion (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77; 3 RCTs; 1029 women; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Immediate insertion of contraceptive implants probably improves the initiation rate compared to delayed insertion following medical abortion (RR 1.26 for medical abortion, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.32; 2 RCTs; 1014 women; I2 = 89%; moderate certainty evidence) and may also improve initiation following surgical abortion (RR 2.32 for surgical abortion, 95% CI 1.79 to 3.01; 1 RCT; 148 women; I2 = not applicable; low certainty evidence). We did not pool results for the implant initiation outcome over both abortion types because of very high statistical heterogeneity. For medical termination of pregnancy, we found there is probably little or no difference between immediate and delayed insertion in overall failure of medical abortion (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.40; 2 RCTs; 1001 women; I2 = 68%;moderate certainty evidence). There may be no difference between immediate and delayed insertion on rates of abnormal bleeding at one month after abortion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.14; 1 RCT; 462 women; I2 = not applicable; low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Provision of progestin-releasing implants concurrently with abortifacient agents likely has little or no negative impact on overall failure rate of medical abortion. Immediate insertion probably improves the initiation rate of contraceptive implant, as well as unintended pregnancy rate within six months after abortion, compared to delayed insertion. There may be no difference between immediate and delayed insertion approaches in bleeding adverse effects at one month after abortion.

Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing infection after continence surgery in women with stress urinary incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Surgical options for treating stress urinary incontinence (SUI) are usually explored after conservative interventions have failed. Surgeries fall into two categories: traditional techniques (open surgery) and minimally invasive procedures, such as laparoscopic procedures, midurethral sling and injections with urethral bulking agents. Postsurgery infections, such as infections of the surgical site or urinary tract, are common complications. To minimise the risk of postoperative bacterial infections, prophylactic antibiotics may be given before or during surgery.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotics for preventing infection following continence surgery in women with stress urinary incontinence.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP; and handsearched journals and conference proceedings to 18 March 2021. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing prophylactic antibiotics in women undergoing continence surgery to treat SUI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected potentially eligible trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and as mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one quasi-RCT and two RCTs, involving a total of 390 women. One study performed retropubic urethropexy surgery requiring a transverse suprapubic incision, while the other two studies performed midurethral sling surgery. It should be noted that none of the included studies clearly specified the timing of outcome assessment. We are very uncertain whether prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin) have an effect on surgical site infections (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.03 to 12.35; 2 studies, 85 women; very low-certainty evidence) or urinary tract infections or bacteriuria (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.05 to 13.24; 2 studies, 85 women; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin) on febrile morbidity is also uncertain (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.29; 2 studies, 85 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin) have any effect on mesh exposure (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.61; 1 study, 59 women; very low-certainty evidence). None of the three included studies described the assessment of adverse events from antibiotic use, sepsis or bacteraemia in their reports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only limited data are available from the three included studies and, overall, the certainty of evidence was very low. Moreover, the three included studies evaluated different surgical procedures and dosages of antibiotic administration. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection following anti-incontinence surgery. In addition, there were no data regarding adverse effects of prophylactic antibiotics. More RCTs are required.

Immediate versus delayed postpartum insertion of contraceptive implant and IUD for contraception.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), including intrauterine devices (IUDs) and contraceptive implants, are highly effective, reversible methods of contraception. Providing LARC methods during the postpartum period is important to support contraceptive choice, and to prevent unintended pregnancy and short interpregnancy intervals. Delaying offering contraception to postpartum people until the first comprehensive postpartum visit, traditionally at around six weeks postpartum, may put some postpartum people at risk of unintended pregnancy, either due to loss to follow-up or because of initiation of sexual intercourse prior to receiving contraception. Therefore, immediate provision of highly effective contraception, prior to discharge from hospital, has the potential to improve contraceptive use and prevent unintended pregnancies and short interpregnancy intervals. OBJECTIVES: To compare the initiation rate, utilization rates (at six months and 12 months after delivery), effectiveness, and adverse effects of immediate versus delayed postpartum insertion of implants and IUDs for contraception. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and POPLINE for eligible studies up to December 2020. We examined review articles and contacted investigators. We checked registers of ongoing clinical trials, citation lists of included studies, key textbooks, grey literature, and previous systematic reviews for potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared immediate postpartum versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implant and IUDs for contraception. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (JS, SK) independently screened titles and abstracts of the search results, and assessed the full-text articles of potentially relevant studies for inclusion. They extracted data from the included studies, assessed risk of bias, compared results, and resolved disagreements by consulting a third review author (PL, SA or PP). We contacted investigators for additional data, where possible. We computed the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria; five were studies of contraceptive implants (715 participants) and 11 were studies of IUDs (1894 participants). We identified 12 ongoing studies. We applied GRADE judgements to our results; the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome ranged from moderate to very low, with the main limitations being risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Contraceptive implants Immediate insertion probably improves the initiation rate for contraceptive implants compared with delayed insertion (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98; 5 studies, 715 participants; I2 = 95%; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there was a difference between the two groups for the utilization rate of contraceptive implants at six months after delivery (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.50; 3 studies, 330 participants; I2 = 89%; very low-certainty evidence) or at 12 months after insertion (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.04; 2 studies, 164 participants; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). People who received an immediate postpartum contraceptive implant insertion may have had a higher mean number of days of prolonged vaginal bleeding within six weeks postpartum (mean difference (MD) 2.98 days, 95% CI -2.71 to 8.66; 2 studies, 420 participants; I2 = 91%; low-certainty evidence) and a higher rate of other adverse effects in the first six weeks after birth (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.06; 1 study, 215 participants; low-certainty evidence) than those who received a delayed postpartum insertion. We are uncertain if there was a difference between the two groups for prolonged bleeding at six months after delivery (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.29 to 4.94; 2 studies, 252 participants; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the two groups for rates of unintended pregnancy at six months (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.08; one study, 205 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there was a difference in rates of unintended pregnancy at 12 months postpartum (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.71; 1 study, 64 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the two groups for any breastfeeding rates at six months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01; 2 studies, 225 participants; I2 = 48%; low-certainty evidence). IUDs Immediate insertion of IUDs probably improves the initiation rate compared with delayed insertion, regardless of type of IUD (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.51; 10 studies, 1894 participants; I2 = 98%; moderate-certainty evidence). However, people who received an immediate postpartum IUD insertion may have had a higher expulsion rate at six months after delivery (RR 4.55, 95% CI 2.52 to 8.19; 8 studies, 1206 participants; I2 = 31%; low-certainty evidence) than those who received a delayed postpartum insertion. We are uncertain if there was a difference between the two groups in the utilization of IUDs at six months after insertion (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.62; 6 studies, 971 participants; I2 = 96%; very low-certainty evidence) or at 12 months after insertion (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.47; 3 studies, 796 participants; I2 = 92%; very low-certainty evidence). Immediate IUDs insertion may reduce unintended pregnancy at 12 months (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.41; 1 study, 1000 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there was difference in any breastfeeding rates at six months in people receiving progestin-releasing IUDs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 5 studies, 435 participants; I2 = 54%; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this updated review indicates that immediate postpartum insertion improves the initiation rate of both contraceptive implants and IUDs by the first postpartum visit compared to delayed insertion. However, it is not clear whether that there are differences in utilization rates at six and 12 months postpartum. We are uncertain whether there is any difference in the unintended pregnancy rate at 12 months. Provision of progestin-releasing implants and IUDs immediately postpartum may have little or no negative impact on breastfeeding. However, the expulsion rate of IUDs and prolonged vaginal bleeding associated with immediate implants appears to be higher.

Luteal phase support for women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or sexual intercourse.

BACKGROUND: Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of luteal phase support (LPS) in infertile women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or by sexual intercourse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 25 August 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LPS using progestogen, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist supplementation in IUI or natural cycle. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate/ongoing pregnancy rate (LBR/OPR) and miscarriage.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (5111 participants). Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low to low. The main limitations of the evidence were poor reporting and imprecision. 1. Progesterone supplement versus placebo or no treatment  We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone increases LBR/OPR (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.48; 7 RCTs; 1792 participants; low-certainty evidence) or decreases miscarriage per pregnancy compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; 5 RCTs; 261 participants). There were no data on LBR or miscarriage with oral stimulation. We are uncertain if progesterone increases LBR/OPR in women with gonadotropin stimulation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.92; 4 RCTs; 1054 participants; low-certainty evidence) and oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64; 2 RCTs; 485 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported on OPR in women with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; the evidence from this study was uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.42; 1 RCT; 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Given the low certainty of the evidence, it is unclear if progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy in any stimulation protocol (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.91; 2 RCTs; 102 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 123 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.14; 2 RCTs; 119 participants, with oral stimulation). Low-certainty evidence suggests that progesterone in all types of ovarian stimulation may increase clinical pregnancy compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.74; 7 RCTs; 1437 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90; 4 RCTs; 733 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole); and RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.98; 6 RCTs; 1073 participants, with oral stimulation). 2. Progesterone supplementation regimen  We are uncertain if there is any difference between 300 mg and 600 mg of vaginal progesterone for OPR and multiple pregnancy (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 RCT; 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence, respectively). No other outcomes were reported for this comparison. There were three different comparisons between progesterone regimens. For OPR, the evidence is very uncertain for intramuscular (IM) versus vaginal progesterone (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.02; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence); we are uncertain if there is any difference between oral and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.22; 1 RCT; 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or between subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.05; 1 RCT; 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if IM or oral progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy compared to vaginal progesterone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; 1 RCT; 81 participants and RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 41 participants, respectively). Clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported for all comparisons; the evidence for these outcomes was very uncertain. Only one RCT reported adverse effects. We are uncertain if IM route increases the risk of adverse effects when compared with the vaginal route (RR 9.25, 95% CI 2.21 to 38.78; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 3. GnRH agonist versus placebo or no treatment  No trials reported live birth. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GnRH agonist in ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.74; 1 RCT; 291 participants, very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.10; 2 RCTs; 79 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 2 RCTs; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; 2 RCTs; 126 participants). 4. GnRH agonist versus vaginal progesterone  The evidence for the effect of GnRH agonist injection on clinical pregnancy is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.95; 1 RCT; 242 participants). 5. HCG injection versus no treatment  The evidence for the effect of hCG injection on clinical pregnancy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.13; 1 RCT; 130 participants) and multiple pregnancy rates (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.92; 1 RCT; 130 participants) is very uncertain. 6. Luteal support in natural cycle No study evaluated the effect of LPS in natural cycle. We could not perform sensitivity analyses, as there were no studies at low risk of selection bias and not at high risk in other domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone supplementation during luteal phase is associated with a higher live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate. Vaginal progesterone may increase clinical pregnancy rate; however, its effect on miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate is uncertain. We are uncertain if IM progesterone improves ongoing pregnancy rates or decreases miscarriage rate when compared to vaginal progesterone. Regarding the other reported comparisons, neither oral progesterone nor any other medication appears to be associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes (very low-certainty evidence).

Fentanyl for labour pain management: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Labour pain has been identified as an important reason for women to prefer caesarean section (CS). Fentanyl is one of the short acting opioids recommended by World Health Organization for pain relief during labour. This study aimed to identify and describe the available evidence on the use of fentanyl (monotherapy) for labour pain management by any routes of administration or regime. METHODS: We included the records published until 31 December 2021 which reported administration of fentanyl to women with normal labour for labour pain relief. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer using a standardised agreement form. We mapped and presented data descriptively in figure and tabular format. RESULTS: We included 51 records from 49 studies in our scoping review. The studies were conducted in 12 countries, mostly high-income countries. The study designs of the 51 included records were varied as follows: 38 (74.5%) experimental studies (35 randomised controlled trials and three quasi-experimental studies), and 12 (23.5%) observational studies (five retrospective cohort studies, four prospective cohort studies, two retrospective descriptive studies, and one descriptive study) and one qualitative study. Of the included records, six used intranasal fentanyl, five used subcutaneous fentanyl, 18 (35.3%) used intravenous fentanyl, 18 (35.3%) used intrathecal fentanyl, and nine used epidural fentanyl. Many records compared fentanyl with another analgesic agent while five records (9.8%) had no comparison group and seven records (13.7%) compared with no analgesia group. The doses of fentanyl varied by routes, study and the requirement depended on the women. Pain assessment was the most frequent outcome measure presented in the records (78.4%). Only nine records (17.6%) investigated women's satisfaction about labour pain relief using fentanyl and seven records (13.7%) reported the effect of fentanyl on breastfeeding. The most common reported neonatal outcomes were foetal heart rate (33 records, 64.7%) and Apgar score (32 records, 62.7%). CONCLUSION: There is limited primary evidence especially randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness and harms of different routes of fentanyl in low- or middle-income countries. There is a need for high-quality research to establish the most effective route of fentanyl and associated effects for evidence-based international guidelines.

Correction: The World Health Organization Fetal Growth Charts: A Multinational Longitudinal Study of Ultrasound Biometric Measurements and Estimated Fetal Weight.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002220.].

Heat-Stable Carbetocin versus Oxytocin to Prevent Hemorrhage after Vaginal Birth.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum hemorrhage is the most common cause of maternal death. Oxytocin is the standard therapy for the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage, but it requires cold storage, which is not available in many countries. In a large trial, we compared a novel formulation of heat-stable carbetocin with oxytocin. METHODS: We enrolled women across 23 sites in 10 countries in a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial comparing intramuscular injections of heat-stable carbetocin (at a dose of 100 µg) with oxytocin (at a dose of 10 IU) administered immediately after vaginal birth. Both drugs were kept in cold storage (2 to 8°C) to maintain double-blinding. There were two primary outcomes: the proportion of women with blood loss of at least 500 ml or the use of additional uterotonic agents, and the proportion of women with blood loss of at least 1000 ml. The noninferiority margins for the relative risks of these outcomes were 1.16 and 1.23, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 29,645 women underwent randomization. The frequency of blood loss of at least 500 ml or the use of additional uterotonic agents was 14.5% in the carbetocin group and 14.4% in the oxytocin group (relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.06), a finding that was consistent with noninferiority. The frequency of blood loss of at least 1000 ml was 1.51% in the carbetocin group and 1.45% in the oxytocin group (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.25), with the confidence interval crossing the margin of noninferiority. The use of additional uterotonic agents, interventions to stop bleeding, and adverse effects did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Heat-stable carbetocin was noninferior to oxytocin for the prevention of blood loss of at least 500 ml or the use of additional uterotonic agents. Noninferiority was not shown for the outcome of blood loss of at least 1000 ml; low event rates for this outcome reduced the power of the trial. (Funded by Merck Sharpe & Dohme; CHAMPION Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12614000870651 ; EudraCT number, 2014-004445-26 ; and Clinical Trials Registry-India number, CTRI/2016/05/006969 .).

Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cholangiocarcinoma (cancer in the bile duct) is an aggressive tumour for which surgical resection is a mainstay of treatment. Despite complete resection, recurrences of the cancer are common and lead to poor prognosis in patients. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy given after surgical resection may reduce the risk of cancer recurrence by eradicating residual cancer and micrometastatic lesions. The benefits and harms of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy versus placebo, no intervention, or other adjuvant chemotherapies are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy versus placebo, no intervention, or other adjuvant chemotherapies for people with cholangiocarcinoma after curative-intent resection. SEARCH METHODS: We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science for trials that met the inclusion criteria up to 28 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, publication status, or language comparing postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy versus placebo, no intervention, or a different postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for participants with curative-intent resection for cholangiocarcinoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods to develop and conduct the review. We conducted meta-analyses and presented results, where feasible, using a random-effects model and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed risk of bias according to predefined domains suggested by Cochrane. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and presented outcome results in a summary of findings table. MAIN RESULTS: We included five published randomised clinical trials. The trials included 931 adults (18 to 83 years old) who underwent curative-intent resection for cholangiocarcinoma. Four trials compared postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (mitomycin-C and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU); gemcitabine; gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin; or capecitabine) versus no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (surgery alone) in 867 participants with cholangiocarcinoma only. A fifth trial compared postoperative adjuvant S-1 (a novel oral fluoropyrimidine derivative) chemotherapy versus gemcitabine in 70 participants with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (64 participants), and gallbladder carcinoma (6 participants). We assessed all of the included trials at overall high risk of bias. One trial was conducted in France, three in Japan, and one in the United Kingdom. We could not perform all planned comparison analyses due to lack of data. Three trials used intention-to-treat analyses. Another trial used per-protocol analysis. In the remaining trial one participant in the intervention group and one in the control group were lost to follow-up. However, the outcomes of these two participants were not described. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy versus no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy We are very uncertain as to whether postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy has little to no effect on all-cause mortality versus no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 4 trials, 867 participants, very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain of the effect of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy on serious adverse events (RR 17.82, 95% CI 2.43 to 130.82; 1 trial, 219 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The trial indicated that postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy could increase serious adverse events, as 19/113 (20.5%) of participants developed an adverse event, compared to 1/106 (1.1%) of participants in the no-postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy group. None of the included trials reported data on health-related quality of life, cancer-related mortality, time to recurrence of the tumour, and non-serious adverse events in participants with only cholangiocarcinoma. Adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidine derivative) versus adjuvant gemcitabine-based chemotherapy The only available trial analysed all participants with intrahepatic, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma together, with data on participants with cholangiocarcinoma not provided separately. The authors reported that one-year overall mortality after adjuvant S-1 therapy was lower than with adjuvant gemcitabine-based therapy following major hepatectomy for biliary tract cancer. There were no differences in two-year overall mortality. FUNDING: two trials received support from drug companies; one trial received funding from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology; one trial received support from "Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (PHRC2009) and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer"; and one trial did not provide information on support or sponsorship. We identified six ongoing randomised clinical trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the very low-certainty evidence found in four trials in people with curative-intent resection for cholangiocarcinoma, we are very uncertain of the effects of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (mitomycin-C and 5-FU; gemcitabine; gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin; or capecitabine) versus no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy on mortality. The effects of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy compared with no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy on serious adverse events are also very uncertain, but the result of the single trial showed 20% higher occurrences of haematologic adverse events. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low due to overall high risk of bias, and imprecision. Due to insufficient power of the only identified trial, the best postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy regimen in people with only cholangiocarcinoma could not be established. We also lack randomised clinical trials with outcome data on adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy versus adjuvant gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in people with cholangiocarcinoma alone. There is a need for further randomised clinical trials designed to be at low risk of bias and with adequate sample size exploring the best adjuvant chemotherapy treatment after surgery in people with cholangiocarcinoma.

Postoperative interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction after radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bladder dysfunction is a common complication following radical hysterectomy, caused by the damage to pelvic autonomic nerves that innervate the muscles of the bladder, urethral sphincter, and pelvic floor fasciae. Bladder dysfunction increases the rates of urinary tract infection, hospital visits or admission, and patient dissatisfaction. In addition, bladder dysfunction can also negatively impact patient quality of life (QoL). Several postoperative interventions have been proposed to prevent bladder dysfunction following radical hysterectomy. To our knowledge, there has been no systematic review evaluating the effectiveness and safety of these interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction following radical hysterectomy in women with cervical cancer. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of postoperative interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction following radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer (stage IA2 to IIA2). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to April week 2, 2020), and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2020, week 16). We also checked registers of clinical trials, grey literature, conference reports, and citation lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and safety of any type of postoperative interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction following a radical hysterectomy in women with stage IA2 to IIA2 cervical cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant RCTs, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, compared results, and made judgments on the quality and certainty of the evidence. We resolved any disagreements through discussion or consultation with a third review author. Outcomes of interest consisted of spontaneous voiding recovery one week after the operation, quality of life (QoL), adverse events, post-void residual urine volume one month after the operation, urinary tract infection over the one month following the operation, and subjective urinary symptoms. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1464 records as a result of the search (excluding duplicates). Of the 20 records that potentially met the review criteria, we included five reports of four studies. Most of the studies had unclear risks of selection and reporting biases. Of the four studies, one compared bethanechol versus placebo and three studies compared suprapubic catheterisation with intermittent self-catheterisation. We identified two ongoing studies. Bethanechol versus placebo The study reported no information on the rate of spontaneous voiding recovery at one week following the operation, QoL, adverse events, urinary tract infection in the first month after surgery, and subjective urinary symptoms for this comparison. The volume of post-void residual urine, assessed at one month after surgery, among women receiving bethanechol was lower than those in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -37.4 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) -60.35 to -14.45; one study, 39 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Suprapubic catheterisation versus intermittent self-catheterisation The studies reported no information on the rate of spontaneous voiding recovery at one week and post-void residual urine volume at one month following the operation for this comparison. There was no difference in risks of acute complication (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.49; one study, 71 participants; very low certainty evidence) and urinary tract infections during the first month after surgery (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.13; two studies, 95 participants; very- low certainty evidence) between participants who underwent suprapubic catheterisation and those who underwent intermittent self-catheterisation. Available data were insufficient to calculate the relative measures of the effect of interventions on QoL and subjective urinary symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the included studies reported rate of spontaneous voiding recovery one week after surgery, time to a post-void residual volume of urine of 50 mL or less, or post-void residual urine volume at 6 and 12 months after surgery, all of which are important outcomes for assessing postoperative bladder dysfunction. Limited evidence suggested that bethanechol may minimise the risk of bladder dysfunction after radical hysterectomy by lowering post-void residual urine volume. The certainty of this evidence, however, was very low. The effectiveness of different types of postoperative urinary catheterisation (suprapubic and intermittent self-catheterisation) remain unproven.

Progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for uterine fibroids (other than preoperative medical therapy).

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems can reduce fibroid-related symptoms. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases to July 2020. We also searched trials registers for ongoing and registered trials, and checked references of relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All identified published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review included four studies with 221 women with uterine fibroids. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded for serious risk of bias, due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS) versus hysterectomy There was no information on the outcomes of interest, including adverse events. LNG-IUS versus low dose combined oral contraceptive (COC) At 12 months, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced the percentage of abnormal uterine bleeding, measured with the alkaline hematin test (mean difference (MD) 77.50%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.44 to 84.56; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or the pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC; MD 34.50%, 95% CI 11.59 to 57.41; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence); increased haemoglobin levels (MD 1.50 g/dL, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or reduced fibroid size more than COC (MD 1.90%, 95% CI -12.24 to 16.04; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure adverse events. LNG-IUS versus oral progestogen (norethisterone acetate (NETA)) Compared to NETA, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced abnormal uterine bleeding more from baseline to six months (visual bleeding score; MD 23.75 points, 95% CI 1.26 to 46.24; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence); increased the percentage of change in haemoglobin from baseline to three months (MD 4.53%, 95% CI 1.46 to 7.60; 1 RCT, 48 women; very low-quality evidence), or from baseline to six months (MD 10.14%, 95% CI 5.57 to 14.71; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure fibroid size. Spotting (adverse event) was more likely to be reported by women with the LNG-IUS (64.3%) than by those taking NETA (30%; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Oral progestogen (dienogest, desogestrel) versus goserelin acetate Compared to goserelin acetate, we are uncertain whether abnormal uterine bleeding was reduced at 12 weeks with dienogest (PBAC; MD 216.00 points, 95% CI 149.35 to 282.65; 1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or desogestrel (PBAC; MD 78.00 points, 95% CI 28.94 to 127.06; 1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). Vasomotor symptoms (adverse events, e.g. hot flashes) are only associated with goserelin acetate (55%), not with dienogest (1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or with desogestrel (1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not report fibroid size. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because of very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS reduces abnormal uterine bleeding or increases haemoglobin levels in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids, compared to COC or norethisterone acetate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the LNG-IUS reduces the size of uterine fibroids compared to COC. We are uncertain whether oral progestogens reduce abnormal uterine bleeding as effectively as goserelin acetate, but women reported fewer adverse events, such as hot flashes.

Anaesthesia/analgesia for manual removal of retained placenta.

BACKGROUND: As a retained placenta is a potential life-threatening obstetrical complication, effective and timely management is important. The estimated mortality rates from a retained placenta in developing countries range from 3% to 9%. One possible factor contributing to the high mortality rates is a delay in initiating manual removal of the placenta. Effective anaesthesia or analgesia during this procedure will provide adequate uterine relaxation and pain control, enabling it to be carried out effectively. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of general, regional, and local anaesthesia or analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 30 September 2019, and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster-randomised trials that compared different methods of preoperative or intraoperative anaesthetic or analgesic, administered during the manual removal of a retained placenta. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the study reports for inclusion, and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We identified only one randomised controlled trial (N = 30 women) that evaluated the effect of paracervical block on women undergoing manual removal of a retained placenta compared with intravenous pethidine and diazepam. The study was conducted in a hospital in Papua New Guinea. The study was at high risk of bias of performance bias and detection bias, low risk of attrition bias, and an unclear risk of selection bias, reporting bias, and other bias. The included study did not measure this review's primary outcomes of pain intensity and adverse events. The study reported that there were no women, in either group, who experienced an estimated postpartum blood loss of more than 500 mL. We are uncertain about the providers' satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 3.16, one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). We are also uncertain about the women's satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.37; one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). The included study did not report on any of our other outcomes of interest. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from one small study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anaesthesia or analgesia during the manual removal of a retained placenta. The quality of the available evidence was very low. We downgraded based on issues of limitations in study design (risk of bias) and imprecision (single study with small sample size, few or no events, and wide confidence intervals). There is a need for well-designed, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of anaesthesia and analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta. These studies could report on the important outcomes outlined in this review.

Health education interventions to promote early presentation and referral for women with symptoms of endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of endometrial (womb) cancer is normally made at an early stage, as most women with the disease experience abnormal vaginal bleeding, which prompts them to seek medical advice. However, delays in presentation and referral can result in delay in diagnosis and management, which can lead to unfavourable treatment outcomes. This is particularly a problem for pre- and peri-menopausal women. Providing educational information to women and healthcare providers regarding symptoms relating to endometrial cancer may raise awareness of the disease and reduce delayed treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of health education interventions targeting healthcare providers, or individuals, or both, to promote early presentation and referral for women with endometrial cancer symptoms. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), both individually randomised and cluster-RCTs. In the absence of RCTs we planned to include well-designed non-randomised studies (NRS) with a parallel comparison assessing the benefits of any type of health education interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria for the review, but none were found. MAIN RESULTS: A comprehensive search of the literature yielded the following results: CENTRAL (1022 references), MEDLINE (2874 references), and Embase (2820 references). After de-duplication, we screened titles and abstracts of 4880 references and excluded 4864 that did not meet the review inclusion criteria. Of the 16 references that potentially met the review inclusion, we excluded all 16 reports after reviewing the full texts. We did not identify any ongoing trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently an absence of evidence to indicate the effectiveness of health education interventions involving healthcare providers or individuals or both to promote early presentation and referral for women with endometrial cancer symptoms. High-quality RCTs are needed to assess whether health education interventions enhance early presentation and referral. If health education interventions can be shown to reduce treatment delays in endometrial cancer, further studies would be required to determine which interventions are most effective.

Strengthening research capacity through regional partners: the HRP Alliance at the World Health Organization.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in health cannot occur without cutting-edge research informing the design and implementation of health programmes and policies, highlighting the need for qualified and capable researchers and institutions in countries where disease burden is high and resources are limited. MAIN BODY: Research capacity strengthening efforts in low- and middle-income countries have included provision of training scholarships for postgraduate degrees, often in high-income countries, internships at research universities/centres, short courses, as well as involvement with research groups for hands-on experience, among others. The HRP Alliance provides opportunities for developing local research capacity in sexual and reproductive health and rights through institutions based in low- and middle-income countries linked with ongoing and past collaborative studies. It is a network of HRP research partner institutions, World Health Organization (WHO) country and regional offices, WHO special programmes and partnerships, and WHO collaborating centres. CONCLUSION: It is through the HRP Alliance that HRP seeks to improve population health by strengthening local research capacity in sexual and reproductive health across the globe, with focus in low- and middle-income countries, in alignment with WHO's quest of promoting healthier populations.