Interventions to prevent spontaneous preterm birth in women with singleton pregnancy who are at high risk: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of bed rest, cervical cerclage (McDonald, Shirodkar, or unspecified type of cerclage), cervical pessary, fish oils or omega fatty acids, nutritional supplements (zinc), progesterone (intramuscular, oral, or vaginal), prophylactic antibiotics, prophylactic tocolytics, combinations of interventions, placebo or no treatment (control) to prevent spontaneous preterm birth in women with a singleton pregnancy and a history of spontaneous preterm birth or short cervical length. DESIGN: Systematic review with bayesian network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Database of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, relevant journals, conference proceedings, and registries of ongoing trials. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials of pregnant women who are at high risk of spontaneous preterm birth because of a history of spontaneous preterm birth or short cervical length. No language or date restrictions were applied. OUTCOMES: Seven maternal outcomes and 11 fetal outcomes were analysed in line with published core outcomes for preterm birth research. Relative treatment effects (odds ratios and 95% credible intervals) and certainty of evidence are presented for outcomes of preterm birth <34 weeks and perinatal death. RESULTS: Sixty one trials (17 273 pregnant women) contributed data for the analysis of at least one outcome. For preterm birth <34 weeks (40 trials, 13 310 pregnant women) and with placebo or no treatment as the comparator, vaginal progesterone was associated with fewer women with preterm birth <34 weeks (odds ratio 0.50, 95% credible interval 0.34 to 0.70, high certainty of evidence). Shirodkar cerclage showed the largest effect size (0.06, 0.00 to 0.84), but the certainty of evidence was low. 17OHPC (17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate; 0.68, 0.43 to 1.02, moderate certainty), vaginal pessary (0.65, 0.39 to 1.08, moderate certainty), and fish oil or omega 3 (0.30, 0.06 to 1.23, moderate certainty) might also reduce preterm birth <34 weeks compared with placebo or no treatment. For the fetal outcome of perinatal death (30 trials, 12 119 pregnant women) and with placebo or no treatment as the comparator, vaginal progesterone was the only treatment that showed clear evidence of benefit for this outcome (0.66, 0.44 to 0.97, moderate certainty). 17OHPC (0.78, 0.50 to 1.21, moderate certainty), McDonald cerclage (0.59, 0.33 to 1.03, moderate certainty), and unspecified cerclage (0.77, 0.53 to 1.11, moderate certainty) might reduce perinatal death rates, but credible intervals could not exclude the possibility of harm. Only progesterone treatments are associated with reduction in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis, and admission to neonatal intensive care unit compared with controls. CONCLUSION: Vaginal progesterone should be considered the preventative treatment of choice for women with singleton pregnancy identified to be at risk of spontaneous preterm birth because of a history of spontaneous preterm birth or short cervical length. Future randomised controlled trials should use vaginal progesterone as a comparator to identify better treatments or combination treatments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020169006.

Maternal selenium levels and whole genome screen in recurrent spontaneous preterm birth population: A nested case control study.

OBJECTIVE: To establish if low maternal selenium (Se) was associated with sPTB in women with recurrent sPTB and identify genetic link with maternal Se levels. DESIGN: Nested case-control study. SETTING: Tertiary Maternity Hospital. POPULATION: Plasma and whole blood from pregnant women with history of early sPTB/PPROM < 34+0 and European ancestry were obtained at 20 weeks (range 15-24 weeks). 'Cases' were recurrent PTB/PPROM < 34+0 weeks and term (≥37+0) deliveries were classified as 'high-risk controls.' Women with previous term births and index birth ≥ 39 weeks were 'low-risk controls'. METHODS: Maternal plasma Se measured by ICP-MS was used as a continuous phenotype in a GWAS analysis. Se was added to a logistic regression model using PTB predictor variables. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maternal Se concentration, recurrent early sPTB/PPROM. RESULTS: 53/177 high-risk women had a recurrent sPTB/PPROM < 34+0weeks and were 2.7 times more likely to have a Se level < 83.3 ppm at 20weeks of pregnancy compared with low-risk term controls (n = 179), (RR 2.7, 95%CI 1.5-4.8; p = .001). One SNP from a non-coding region (FOXN3 intron variant, rs55793422) reached genome-wide significance level (p = 3.73E-08). Targeted analysis of Se gene variant did not show difference between preterm and term births. (χ2 test, OR = 0.95; 95%CI = 0.59-1.56; p = 0.82). When Se levels were added to a clinical prediction model, only an additional 5% of cases (n = 3) and 0.6% (n = 1) of controls were correctly identified. CONCLUSIONS: Low plasma Se is associated with sPTB risk but is not sufficiently predictive at individual patient level. We did not find a genetic association between maternal Se levels and Se-related genes.

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

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

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

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

Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour is carried out for a variety of indications and using a range of methods. For women at low risk of pregnancy complications, some methods of induction of labour or cervical ripening may be suitable for use in outpatient settings. OBJECTIVES: To examine pharmacological and mechanical interventions to induce labour or ripen the cervix in outpatient settings in terms of effectiveness, maternal satisfaction, healthcare costs and, where information is available, safety. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials examining outpatient cervical ripening or induction of labour with pharmacological agents or mechanical methods. Cluster trials were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review included 34 studies of 11 different methods for labour induction with 5003 randomised women, where women received treatment at home or were sent home after initial treatment and monitoring in hospital.Studies examined vaginal and intracervical prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), vaginal and oral misoprostol, isosorbide mononitrate, mifepristone, oestrogens, amniotomy and acupuncture, compared with placebo, no treatment, or routine care. Trials generally recruited healthy women with a term pregnancy. The risk of bias was mostly low or unclear, however, in 16 trials blinding was unclear or not attempted. In general, limited data were available on the review's main and additional outcomes. Evidence was graded low to moderate quality. 1. Vaginal PGE2 versus expectant management or placebo (5 studies)Fewer women in the vaginal PGE2 group needed additional induction agents to induce labour, however, confidence intervals were wide (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99; 150 women; 2 trials). There were no clear differences between groups in uterine hyperstimulation (with or without fetal heart rate (FHR) changes) (RR 3.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 22.24; 244 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.31; 288 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), or admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.03; 230 infants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence).There was no information on vaginal birth within 24, 48 or 72 hours, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services or maternal or caregiver satisfaction. Serious maternal and neonatal morbidity or deaths were not reported. 2. Intracervical PGE2 versus expectant management or placebo (7 studies) There was no clear difference between women receiving intracervical PGE2 and no treatment or placebo in terms of need for additional induction agents (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.32; 445 women; 3 studies), vaginal birth not achieved within 48 to 72 hours (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 43 women; 1 study; low-quality evidence), uterine hyperstimulation (with FHR changes) (RR 2.66, 95% CI 0.63 to 11.25; 488 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 674 women; 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence), or babies admitted to NICU (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 6.05; 215 infants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). There were no uterine ruptures in either the PGE2 group or placebo group.There was no information on vaginal birth not achieved within 24 hours, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services, mother or caregiver satisfaction, or serious morbidity or neonatal morbidity or perinatal death. 3. Vaginal misoprostol versus placebo (4 studies)One small study reported on the rate of perinatal death with no clear differences between groups; there were no deaths in the treatment group compared with one stillbirth (reason not reported) in the control group (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14; 77 infants; 1 study; low-quality evidence).There was no clear difference between groups in rates of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.00; 265 women; 3 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46; 325 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), and babies admitted to NICU (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.47; 325 infants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence).There was no information on vaginal birth not achieved within 24, 48 or 72 hours, additional induction agents required, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services, mother or caregiver satisfaction, serious maternal, and other neonatal, morbidity or death.No substantive differences were found for other comparisons. One small study found that women who received oral misoprostol were more likely to give birth within 24 hours (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; 87 women; 1 study) and were less likely to require additional induction agents (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.97; 127 women; 2 studies). Women who received mifepristone were also less likely to require additional induction agents (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 311 women; 4 studies; I² = 74%); however, this result should be interpreted with caution due to high heterogeneity. One trial each of acupuncture and outpatient amniotomy were included, but few review outcomes were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Induction of labour in outpatient settings appears feasible and important adverse events seem rare, however, in general there is insufficient evidence to detect differences. There was no strong evidence that agents used to induce labour in outpatient settings had an impact (positive or negative) on maternal or neonatal health. There was some evidence that compared to placebo or no treatment, induction agents administered on an outpatient basis reduced the need for further interventions to induce labour, and shortened the interval from intervention to birth.We do not have sufficient evidence to know which induction methods are preferred by women, the interventions that are most effective and safe to use in outpatient settings, or their cost effectiveness. Further studies where various women-friendly outpatient protocols are compared head-to-head are required. As part of such work, women should be consulted on what sort of management they would prefer.

Each baby counts: National quality improvement programme to reduce intrapartum-related deaths and brain injuries in term babies.

Although the most recent MBRRACE-UK (Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK) perinatal mortality report has shown a downward trend in perinatal mortality, the UK still lags behind the best-performing countries in Europe. The burden of perinatal morbidity and mortality is wide-reaching and devastating for the families and care-providers involved. The aim of the Each Baby Counts (EBC) project is to reduce intrapartum term stillbirths, early neonatal deaths, and severe brain injuries by 50% by 2020. Every maternity care provider has been asked to report their intrapartum term stillbirths, early neonatal deaths and severe brain injuries to the EBC project and provide a copy of the local review. The local reviews are assessed by two trained EBC reviewers in order to establish whether the reviews are of adequate quality. The EBC reviewers are asked independently to assess whether there is sufficient clinical information to make a clinical judgement about care, and whether different care could have had a positive impact on the outcome. The reviewers are asked to indicate in what areas care might be improved. The analysis of the local reports will be twofold. Initially quantitative analysis will provide us with information about the scale of the problem, the quality of the local review process into adverse events, and who is involved in such reviews. Qualitative analysis of the themes highlighted in the reviews will enable us to develop care bundles or other tools to drive local quality improvement.

Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The pain that women experience during labour is affected by multiple physiological and psychosocial factors and its intensity can vary greatly.  Most women in labour require pain relief. Pain management strategies include non-pharmacological interventions (that aim to help women cope with pain in labour) and pharmacological interventions (that aim to relieve the pain of labour). OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage pain in labour. We considered findings from non-Cochrane systematic reviews if there was no relevant Cochrane review. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 5), The Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to 31 May 2011) to identify all relevant systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of pain management in labour. Each of the contributing Cochrane reviews (nine new, six updated) followed a generic protocol with 13 common primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Each Cochrane review included comparisons with placebo, standard care or with a different intervention according to a predefined hierarchy of interventions. Two review authors extracted data and assessed methodological quality, and data were checked by a third author. This overview is a narrative summary of the results obtained from individual reviews. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 15 Cochrane reviews (255 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (55 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. For all interventions, with available data, results are presented as comparisons of: 1. Intervention versus placebo or standard care; 2. Different forms of the same intervention (e.g. one opioid versus another opioid); 3. One type of intervention versus a different type of intervention (e.g. TENS versus opioid). Not all reviews included results for all comparisons. Most reviews compared the intervention with placebo or standard care, but with the exception of opioids and epidural analgesia, there were few direct comparisons between different forms of the same intervention, and even fewer comparisons between different interventions. Based on these three comparisons, we have categorised interventions into: " What works" ,"What may work", and "Insufficient evidence to make a judgement".WHAT WORKSEvidence suggests that epidural, combined spinal epidural (CSE) and inhaled analgesia effectively manage pain in labour, but may give rise to adverse effects. Epidural, and inhaled analgesia effectively relieve pain when compared with placebo or a different type of intervention (epidural versus opioids). Combined-spinal epidurals relieve pain more quickly than traditional or low dose epidurals. Women receiving inhaled analgesia were more likely to experience vomiting, nausea and dizziness.When compared with placebo or opioids, women receiving epidural analgesia had more instrumental vaginal births and caesarean sections for fetal distress, although there was no difference in the rates of caesarean section overall. Women receiving epidural analgesia were more likely to experience hypotension, motor blockade, fever or urinary retention. Less urinary retention was observed in women receiving CSE than in women receiving traditional epidurals. More women receiving CSE than low-dose epidural experienced pruritus.  WHAT MAY WORKThere is some evidence to suggest that immersion in water, relaxation, acupuncture, massage and local anaesthetic nerve blocks or non-opioid drugs may improve management of labour pain, with few adverse effects.  Evidence was mainly limited to single trials. These interventions relieved pain and improved satisfaction with pain relief (immersion, relaxation, acupuncture, local anaesthetic nerve blocks, non-opioids) and childbirth experience (immersion, relaxation, non-opioids) when compared with placebo or standard care. Relaxation was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and acupuncture was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and caesarean sections.INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCEThere is insufficient evidence to make judgements on whether or not hypnosis, biofeedback, sterile water injection, aromatherapy, TENS, or parenteral opioids are more effective than placebo or other interventions for pain management in labour. In comparison with other opioids more women receiving pethidine experienced adverse effects including drowsiness and nausea.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most methods of non-pharmacological pain management are non-invasive and appear to be safe for mother and baby, however, their efficacy is unclear, due to limited high quality evidence. In many reviews, only one or two trials provided outcome data for analysis and the overall methodological quality of the trials was low. High quality trials are needed.There is more evidence to support the efficacy of pharmacological methods, but these have more adverse effects. Thus, epidural analgesia provides effective pain relief but at the cost of increased instrumental vaginal birth.It remains important to tailor methods used to each woman's wishes, needs and circumstances, such as anticipated duration of labour, the infant's condition, and any augmentation or induction of labour.A major challenge in compiling this overview, and the individual systematic reviews on which it is based, has been the variation in use of different process and outcome measures in different trials, particularly assessment of pain and its relief, and effects on the neonate after birth. This made it difficult to pool results from otherwise similar studies, and to derive conclusions from the totality of evidence. Other important outcomes have simply not been assessed in trials; thus, despite concerns for 30 years or more about the effects of maternal opioid administration during labour on subsequent neonatal behaviour and its influence on breastfeeding, only two out of 57 trials of opioids reported breastfeeding as an outcome. We therefore strongly recommend that the outcome measures, agreed through wide consultation for this project, are used in all future trials of methods of pain management.

Analgesia for amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling.

BACKGROUND: Besides risks of miscarriage, pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) are also concerned about pain associated with these procedures. Currently, approaches to analgesia can be categorised in two broad categories - non-pharmacological and pharmacological agents. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether different methods of analgesia have any impact on pain reduction during amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials comparing different method of analgesia for amniocentesis or CVS. We also include trials with quasi-randomised designs, but analyse and report their results separately. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both review authors assessed eligibility and trial quality and performed data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of five randomised studies (involving 805 women) evaluating different methods of analgesia for amniocentesis; there were no studies in women undergoing CVS.One RCT (N = 203) and one quasi-randomised study (N = 220) compared infiltrative local anaesthesia with no anaesthesia and found no statistical difference in experienced pain on the visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean differences (MD) -2.50 and 1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.98 to 1.98 and -2.67 to 5.07).One study (N = 200) compared light leg rubbing versus no intervention during amniocentesis and found no change in experienced anxiety (MD 0.2; 95% CI -0.63 to 1.03) or VAS pain score (MD 0.3; 95% CI -0.35 to 0.95) during amniocentesis.Another study with 62 patients did not find any benefit of using subfreezing temperature needle during amniocentesis in terms of decreased VAS pain score (MD -0.8; 95% CI -1.8 to 0.2). In addition, there was no difference between anticipated and actual pain (MD 0.4; 95% CI -0.82 to 1.62) (before/after comparison).There was also no difference in VAS pain scores in the study with 120 participants comparing lidocaine-prilocaine analgesic cream to placebo cream before amniocentesis (MD -0.6; 95% CI -1.44 to 0.24). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In general, women who undergo amniocentesis could be informed that pain during procedure is minor and that there is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of local anaesthetics, leg rubbing or subfreezing the needle for pain reduction during procedure.

Different methods for the induction of labour in outpatient settings.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour is carried out for a variety of indications and using a range of pharmacological, mechanical and other methods. For women at low risk, some methods of induction of labour may be suitable for use in outpatient settings. OBJECTIVES: To examine pharmacological and mechanical interventions to induce labour in outpatient settings in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, maternal satisfaction, healthcare costs and, where information is available, safety. The review complements existing reviews on labour induction examining effectiveness and safety. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (December 2009) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials examining outpatient cervical ripening or induction of labour with pharmacological agents or mechanical methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed eligible papers for risk of bias. We checked all data after entry into review manager software. MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 studies with 2616 women examining different methods of induction of labour where women received treatment at home or were sent home after initial treatment and monitoring in hospital.Studies examined vaginal and intracervical PGE(2), vaginal and oral misoprostol, isosorbide mononitrate, mifepristone, oestrogens, and acupuncture. Overall, the results demonstrate that outpatient induction of labour is feasible and that important adverse events are rare. There was no strong evidence that agents used to induce labour in outpatient settings had an impact (positive or negative) on maternal or neonatal health. There was some evidence that, compared to placebo or no treatment, induction agents reduced the need for further interventions to induce labour, and shortened the interval from intervention to birth. We were unable to pool results on outcomes relating to progress in labour as studies tended to measure a very broad range of outcomes.There was no evidence that induction agents increased interventions in labour such as operative deliveries. Only two studies provided information on women's views about the induction process, and overall there was very little information on the costs to health service providers of different methods of labour induction in outpatient settings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Induction of labour in outpatient settings appears feasible. We do not have sufficient evidence to know which induction methods are preferred by women, or the interventions that are most effective and safe to use in outpatient settings.

Differences in episiotomy technique between midwives and doctors.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the practice of making an episiotomy and to determine any differences in practice between professional groups. DESIGN: A prospective survey. SETTING: A large tertiary referral obstetric hospital and the obstetric department of a district general hospital. POPULATION: All staff routinely involved in the care of women in labour. METHODS: A novel validated pictorial questionnaire was designed, validated and distributed to the study population. Differences in outcome measures were compared by profession and by seniority. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measurements taken from the questionnaire: the length of episiotomy drawn; the distance from the sagittal plane at which the episiotomy was begun; and the angle of the episiotomy from the sagittal plane. RESULTS: Fifty doctors and 78 midwives completed the forms. Median distance of the episiotomy from the midline was 0 mm (-2 to 11). Episiotomies drawn by doctors were significantly longer and more angled than those drawn by midwives (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001). Sixteen percent of doctors and 1% of midwives drew an episiotomy longer than 20 mm (difference 15%, 95% CI 6 to 24). Twenty-three percent of midwives and 2% of doctors drew an episiotomy angled 30 degrees or less (difference 21%, 95% CI 9 to 34). CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated differences in the reporting of episiotomy practice by doctors and midwives. Theoretically, the differences demonstrated could predispose to a greater risk of anal sphincter injuries. These data need to be confirmed by observational studies of actual practice and by studies to investigate the mechanics of sphincter injury during childbirth.