Emerging Therapies in Anaphylaxis: Alternatives to Intramuscular Administration of Epinephrine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Anaphylaxis is a severe, life-threatening, systemic allergic reaction that should be recognized and treated promptly. Intramuscular (IM) epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis and there are no absolute contraindications to its use. Despite its established track record of efficacy and safety, physicians and patients face barriers in the recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis, including the maintenance and appropriate use of epinephrine auto-injectors. This has led to investigation into potential alternatives to IM epinephrine administration in anaphylaxis. RECENT FINDINGS: This review investigates the current standard of care in the treatment of anaphylaxis, barriers to IM epinephrine use, and alternative therapies under investigation for administration in anaphylaxis. Alternative routes under investigation include intranasal, sublingual, inhaled, and needle-free intramuscular administration of epinephrine. There are currently numerous investigational alternatives to IM epinephrine therapy which could hold promise as future effective treatments in the emergent management of anaphylaxis.

Protein supplementation of human milk for promoting growth in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Preterm infants require high protein intake to achieve adequate growth and development. Although breast milk feeding has many benefits for this population, the protein content is highly variable, and inadequate to support rapid infant growth. This is a 2020 update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether protein-supplemented human milk compared with unsupplemented human milk, fed to preterm infants, improves growth, body composition, cardio-metabolic, and neurodevelopmental outcomes, without significant adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2019, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE via PubMed on 23 August 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished RCTs were eligible if they used random or quasi-random methods to allocate hospitalised preterm infants who were being fed human milk, to additional protein supplementation or no supplementation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and the quality of evidence at the outcome level, using GRADE methodology. We performed meta-analyses, using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model and had planned to explore potential causes of heterogeneity via subgroup or sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs, involving 204 preterm infants. The risk of bias for most methodological domains was unclear as there was insufficient detail reported. Low-quality evidence showed that protein supplementation of human milk may increase in-hospital rates of growth in weight (MD 3.82 g/kg/day, 95% CI 2.94 to 4.7; five RCTs, 101 infants; I² = 73%), length (MD 0.12 cm/wk, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17; four RCTs, 68 infants; I² = 89%), and head circumference (MD 0.06 cm/wk, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12; four RCTs, 68 infants; I² = 84%). Protein supplementation may lead to longer hospital stays (MD 18.5 days, 95% CI 4.39 to 32.61; one RCT, 20 infants; very low-quality evidence). Very low quality evidence means that the effect of protein supplementation on the risk of feeding intolerance (RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.13 to 58.24; one RCT, 17 infants), or necrotizing enterocolitis (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.12; one RCT, 76 infants) remains uncertain. No data were available about the effects of protein supplementation on neurodevelopmental outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence showed that protein supplementation of human milk, fed to preterm infants, increased short-term growth. However, the small sample sizes, low precision, and very low-quality evidence regarding duration of hospital stay, feeding intolerance, and necrotising enterocolitis precluded any conclusions about these outcomes. There were no data on outcomes after hospital discharge. Our findings may not be generalisable to low-resource settings, as none of the included studies were conducted in these settings. Since protein supplementation of human milk is now usually done as a component of multi-nutrient fortifiers, future studies should compare different amounts of protein in multi-component fortifiers, and be designed to determine the effects on duration of hospital stay and safety, as well as on long-term growth, body composition, cardio-metabolic, and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Preterm infants are born with low glycogen stores and require higher glucose intake to match fetal accretion rates. In spite of the myriad benefits of breast milk for preterm infants, it may not adequately meet the needs of these rapidly growing infants. Supplementing human milk with carbohydrates may help. However, there is a paucity of data on assessment of benefits or harms of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants. This is a 2020 update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether human milk supplemented with carbohydrate compared with unsupplemented human milk fed to preterm infants improves growth, body composition, and cardio-metabolic and neurodevelopmental outcomes without significant adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2019, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE via PubMed on 22 August 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished controlled trials were eligible if they used random or quasi-random methods to allocate preterm infants in hospital fed human milk to supplementation or no supplementation with additional carbohydrate. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality and the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. We planned to perform meta-analyses using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to use a fixed-effect model and to explore potential causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analyses. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: One unblinded, quasi-randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing effects of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk in the form of a prebiotic in 75 preterm infants was eligible for inclusion in this review. We identified two publications of the same trial, which reported different methods regarding blinding and randomisation. Study authors confirmed that these publications pertain to the same trial, but they have not yet clarified which method is correct. We were unable to reproduce analyses from the data presented. At 30 days of age, the mean weight of preterm infants in the trial was greater in the prebiotic carbohydrate-supplemented group than in the unsupplemented group (MD 160.4 grams, 95% CI 12.4 to 308.4 grams; one RCT, N = 75; very low-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a clear difference in risk of feeding intolerance (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.15; one RCT, N = 75 infants; very low-quality evidence) or necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.3; one RCT, N = 75 infants; very low-quality evidence) between the prebiotic-supplemented group and the unsupplemented group. Duration of hospital stay was shorter in the prebiotic group than in the control group at a median (range) of 16 (9 to 45) days (95% CI 15.34 to 24.09) and 25 (11 to 80) days (95% CI 25.52 to 34.39), respectively. No other data were available for assessing effects of carbohydrate supplementation on short- and long-term growth, body mass index, body composition, and neurodevelopmental or cardio-metabolic outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence on the short- and long-term effects of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk in preterm infants. The only trial included in this review presented very low-quality evidence, and study authors provided uncertain information about study methods and analysis. The evidence may be limited in its applicability because researchers included a small sample of preterm infants from a single centre. However, the outcomes assessed are common to all preterm infants, and this trial demonstrates the feasibility of prebiotic carbohydrate supplementation in upper-middle-income countries. Future trials should assess the safety and efficacy of different types and concentrations of carbohydrate supplementation for preterm infants fed human milk. Although prebiotic carbohydrate supplementation in preterm infants is currently a topic of active research, we do not envisage that further trials of digestible carbohydrates will be conducted, as this is currently done as a component of multi-nutrient human milk fortification. Hence we do not plan to publish any further updates of this review.

Fat supplementation of human milk for promoting growth in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: As preterm infants do not experience the nutrient accretion and rapid growth phase of the third trimester of pregnancy, they are vulnerable to postnatal nutritional deficits, including of fat. Consequently, they require higher fat intakes compared to their full term counterparts to achieve adequate growth and development. Human milk fat provides the major energy needs of the preterm infant and also contributes to several metabolic and physiological functions. Although human milk has many benefits for this population, its fat content is highly variable and may be inadequate for their optimum growth and development. This is a 2020 update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2000. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether supplementation of human milk with fat compared with unsupplemented human milk fed to preterm infants improves growth, body composition, cardio-metabolic, and neurodevelopmental outcomes without significant adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2019, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE via PubMed on 23 August 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials were eligible if they used random or quasi-random methods to allocate preterm infants fed human milk in hospital to supplementation or no supplementation with additional fat. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No new randomised controlled trials matching the selection criteria were found but we extracted data from the previously included trial due to changes in review outcomes from when the protocol was first published. Two reviewers independently abstracted data, assessed trial quality, and the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. We planned to perform meta-analyses using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to use a fixed-effect model and to explore potential causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: One randomised trial involving 14 preterm infants was included. There was no evidence of a clear difference between the fat-supplemented and unsupplemented groups in in-hospital rates of growth in weight (MD 0.6 g/kg/day, 95% CI -2.4 to 3.6; 1 RCT, n = 14 infants, very low-quality evidence), length (MD 0.1 cm/week, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.3; 1 RCT, n = 14 infants, very low-quality evidence) and head circumference (MD 0.2 cm/week, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.4; 1 RCT n = 14 infants, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence that fat supplementation increased the risk of feeding intolerance (RR 3.0, 95% CI 0.1 to 64.3; 1 RCT, n = 16 infants, very low-quality evidence). No data were available regarding the effects of fat supplementation on long-term growth, body mass index, body composition, neurodevelopmental, or cardio-metabolic outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The one included trial suggests no evidence of an effect of fat supplementation of human milk on short-term growth and feeding intolerance in preterm infants. However, the very low-quality evidence, small sample size, few events, and low precision diminishes our confidence that these results reflect the true effect of fat supplementation of human milk in preterm infants, and no long-term outcomes were reported. Further high-quality research should evaluate the effect on short and long-term growth, neurodevelopmental and cardio-metabolic outcomes in the context of the development of multicomponent fortifiers. Optimal dosage, adverse effects, and delivery practices should also be evaluated.

Carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Preterm infants are born with low glycogen stores and require higher glucose intake to match fetal accretion rates. In spite of the myriad benefits of breast milk for preterm infants, it may not adequately meet the needs of these rapidly growing infants. Supplementing human milk with carbohydrates may help. However, there is a paucity of data on assessment of benefits or harms of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants. This is a 2018 update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether human milk supplemented with carbohydrate compared with unsupplemented human milk fed to preterm infants improves growth, body composition, and cardio-metabolic and neurodevelopmental outcomes without significant adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 21 February 2018), Embase (1980 to 21 February 2018), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 21 February 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished controlled trials were eligible if they used random or quasi-random methods to allocate preterm infants in hospital fed human milk to supplementation or no supplementation with additional carbohydrate. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality and the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. We planned to perform meta-analyses using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to use a fixed-effect model and to explore potential causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analyses. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: One unblinded, quasi-randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing effects of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk in the form of a prebiotic in 75 preterm infants was eligible for inclusion in this review. We identified two publications of the same trial, which reported different methods regarding blinding and randomisation. Study authors confirmed that these publications pertain to the same trial, but they have not yet clarified which method is correct. We were unable to reproduce analyses from the data presented. At 30 days of age, the mean weight of preterm infants in the trial was greater in the prebiotic carbohydrate-supplemented group than in the unsupplemented group (MD 160.4 grams, 95% CI 12.4 to 308.4 grams; one RCT, N = 75; very low-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a clear difference in risk of feeding intolerance (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.15; one RCT, N = 75 infants; very low-quality evidence) or necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.3; one RCT, N = 75 infants; very low-quality evidence) between the prebiotic-supplemented group and the unsupplemented group. Duration of hospital stay was shorter in the prebiotic group than in the control group at a median (range) of 16 (9 to 45) days (95% CI 15.34 to 24.09) and 25 (11 to 80) days (95% CI 25.52 to 34.39), respectively. No other data were available for assessing effects of carbohydrate supplementation on short- and long-term growth, body mass index, body composition, and neurodevelopmental or cardio-metabolic outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence on the short- and long-term effects of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk in preterm infants. The only trial included in this review presented very low-quality evidence, and study authors provided uncertain information about study methods and analysis. The evidence may be limited in its applicability because researchers included a small sample of preterm infants from a single centre. However, the outcomes assessed are common to all preterm infants, and this trial demonstrates the feasibility of prebiotic carbohydrate supplementation in upper-middle-income countries. Future trials should assess the safety and efficacy of different types and concentrations of carbohydrate supplementation for preterm infants fed human milk. Although prebiotic carbohydrate supplementation in preterm infants is currently a topic of active research, we do not envisage that further trials of digestible carbohydrates will be conducted, as this is currently done as a component of multi-nutrient human milk fortification. Hence we do not plan to publish any further updates of this review.

Protein supplementation of human milk for promoting growth in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Preterm infants require high protein intake to achieve adequate growth and development. Although breast milk feeding has many benefits for this population, the protein content is highly variable, and inadequate to support rapid infant growth. This is a 2018 update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether protein-supplemented human milk compared with unsupplemented human milk, fed to preterm infants, improves growth, body composition, cardio-metabolic, and neurodevelopmental outcomes, without significant adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL (February 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished RCTs were eligible if they used random or quasi-random methods to allocate hospitalised preterm infants who were being fed human milk, to additional protein supplementation or no supplementation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and the quality of evidence at the outcome level, using GRADE methodology. We performed meta-analyses, using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model and had planned to explore potential causes of heterogeneity via subgroup or sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs, involving 204 preterm infants. Low-quality evidence showed that protein supplementation of human milk increased in-hospital rates of growth in weight (MD 3.82 g/kg/day, 95% CI 2.94 to 4.7; five RCTs, 101 infants; I² = 73%), length (MD 0.12 cm/wk, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17; four RCTs, 68 infants; I² = 89%), and head circumference (MD 0.06 cm/wk, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12; four RCTs, 68 infants; I² = 84%). There was no evidence of a clear difference in rate of growth of skin fold thickness between the supplemented and unsupplemented groups (triceps MD 0.06 mm/wk, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.21; one RCT, 20 infants; or subscapular MD 0.00 mm/wk, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.17; one RCT, 20 infants). Protein supplementation led to longer hospital stays (MD 18.5 days, 95% CI 4.39 to 32.61; one RCT, 20 infants; very low-quality evidence), and higher blood urea nitrogen concentrations compared to the unsupplemented group (MD 0.95 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; four RCTs, 81 infants; I² = 56%). Very low-quality evidence did not show that protein supplementation clearly increased the risk of feeding intolerance (RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.13 to 58.24; one RCT, 17 infants), or necrotizing enterocolitis (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.12; one RCT, 76 infants), or clearly altered serum albumin concentrations (MD 2.5 g/L, 95% CI -5.66 to 10.66; one RCT, 11 infants), compared with the unsupplemented groups. No data were available about the effects of protein supplementation on long-term growth, body mass index, body composition, neurodevelopmental, or cardio-metabolic outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence showed that protein supplementation of human milk, fed to preterm infants, increased short-term growth. However, the small sample sizes, low precision, and very low-quality evidence regarding duration of hospital stay, feeding intolerance, and necrotising enterocolitis precluded any conclusions about these outcomes. There were no data on outcomes after hospital discharge. Our findings may not be generalisable to low-resource settings, as none of the included studies were conducted in these settings.Since protein supplementation of human milk is now usually done as a component of multi-nutrient fortifiers, future studies should compare different amounts of protein in multi-component fortifiers, and be designed to determine the effects on duration of hospital stay and safety, as well as on long-term growth, body composition, cardio-metabolic, and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Fat supplementation of human milk for promoting growth in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: As preterm infants do not experience the nutrient accretion and rapid growth phase of the third trimester of pregnancy, they are vulnerable to postnatal nutritional deficits, including of fat. Consequently, they require higher fat intakes compared to their full term counterparts to achieve adequate growth and development. Human milk fat provides the major energy needs of the preterm infant and also contributes to several metabolic and physiological functions. Although human milk has many benefits for this population, its fat content is highly variable and may be inadequate for their optimum growth and development. This is a 2018 update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2000. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether supplementation of human milk with fat compared with unsupplemented human milk fed to preterm infants improves growth, body composition, cardio-metabolic, and neurodevelopmental outcomes without significant adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 08 February 2018), Embase (1980 to 08 February 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 08 February 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials were eligible if they used random or quasi-random methods to allocate preterm infants fed human milk in hospital to supplementation or no supplementation with additional fat. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No new randomised controlled trials matching the selection criteria were found but we extracted data from the previously included trial due to changes in review outcomes from when the protocol was first published. Two reviewers independently abstracted data, assessed trial quality, and the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. We planned to perform meta-analyses using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to use a fixed-effect model and to explore potential causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: One randomised trial involving 14 preterm infants was included. There was no evidence of a clear difference between the fat-supplemented and unsupplemented groups in in-hospital rates of growth in weight (MD 0.6 g/kg/day, 95% CI -2.4 to 3.6; 1 RCT, n = 14 infants, very low-quality evidence), length (MD 0.1 cm/week, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.3; 1 RCT, n = 14 infants, very low-quality evidence) and head circumference (MD 0.2 cm/week, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.4; 1 RCT n = 14 infants, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence that fat supplementation increased the risk of feeding intolerance (RR 3.0, 95% CI 0.1 to 64.3; 1 RCT, n = 16 infants, very low-quality evidence). No data were available regarding the effects of fat supplementation on long-term growth, body mass index, body composition, neurodevelopmental, or cardio-metabolic outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The one included trial suggests no evidence of an effect of fat supplementation of human milk on short-term growth and feeding intolerance in preterm infants. However, the very low-quality evidence, small sample size, few events, and low precision diminishes our confidence that these results reflect the true effect of fat supplementation of human milk in preterm infants, and no long-term outcomes were reported. Further high-quality research should evaluate the effect on short and long-term growth, neurodevelopmental and cardio-metabolic outcomes in the context of the development of multicomponent fortifiers. Optimal dosage, adverse effects, and delivery practices should also be evaluated.

Clinical Pathway Produces Sustained Improvement in Acute Gastroenteritis Care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite widespread use of the rotavirus vaccine in the last decade, dehydrating illnesses impact almost 2 billion children worldwide annually. Evidence supports oral rehydration therapy as a first-line treatment of mild to moderate dehydration. Ondansetron has proven to be a safe and effective adjunct in children with vomiting. We implemented a clinical pathway in our pediatric emergency department (ED) in January 2005 to improve care for this common condition. Our objective in this study was to determine the long-term impact of the pathway for acute gastroenteritis (AGE) on the proportion of patients receiving intravenous (IV) fluids and ED length of stay (LOS) for discharged patients. METHODS: Cases were identified by using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes. We used statistical process control to analyze process and outcome measures for 2 years before and 10 years after pathway implementation. RESULTS: We included 30 519 patients. We found special cause variation with a downward shift in patients receiving IV fluids after initiation of the pathway and later with addition of ondansetron to the pathway from 48% to 26%. Mean ED LOS for discharged patients with AGE decreased from 247 to 172 minutes. These improvements were sustained over time. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a clinical pathway emphasizing oral rehydration therapy and ondansetron for children with AGE led to decreased IV fluid use and LOS in a pediatric ED. Improvements were sustained over a 10-year period. Our results suggest that quality-improvement interventions for AGE can have long-term impacts on care delivery.

Calcium and phosphorus supplementation of human milk for preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Preterm infants are born with low skeletal stores of calcium and phosphorus. Preterm human milk provides insufficient calcium and phosphorus to meet the estimated needs of preterm infants for adequate growth. Supplementation of human milk with calcium and phosphorus may improve growth and development of preterm infants. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether addition of calcium and phosphorus supplements to human milk leads to improved growth and bone metabolism of preterm infants without significant adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 14 April 2016), Embase (1980 to 14 April 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 14 April 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases (11 May 2016) and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing supplementation of human milk with calcium and/or phosphorus versus no supplementation in hospitalised preterm infants were eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (JB, JW) independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We reported dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This is an update of a 2001 review that identified no eligible trials. One trial including 40 infants met the inclusion criteria for this review. Using GRADE criteria, we judged the quality of the evidence as low owing to risk of bias (inadequate reporting of methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and/or blinding) and imprecision (wide confidence intervals and data from a single small trial). We found no evidence of a difference between calcium and phosphorus supplementation versus no supplementation for neonatal growth outcomes (weight, length, head circumference) at any time point reported (two, four or six weeks postnatal age). At six weeks postnatal age, supplementation with calcium/phosphorus was associated with a decrease in serum alkaline phosphatase concentration (MD -56.85 IU/L, 95% CI -101.27 to -12.43; one randomised controlled trial (RCT); n = 40 infants). Investigators provided no data on growth at 12 to 18 months, neonatal fractures, feed intolerance, breastfeeding or any of the prespecified childhood outcomes for this review (fractures, growth, neurodevelopmental outcomes). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified one small trial including only 40 infants that compared supplementation of human milk with calcium and phosphorus versus no supplementation in hospitalised preterm infants. We judged the evidence to be of low quality and found no evidence of differences between groups for clinically important outcomes including growth and fractures. Although serum alkaline phosphatase concentration was reduced in the group receiving supplementation at six weeks postnatal age, this difference is unlikely to be of clinical significance. We conclude that evidence is insufficient to determine whether benefit or harm ensues when human milk is supplemented with calcium and/or phosphorus for the hospitalised preterm infant. We see no advantage of conducting further trials of this intervention because with the advent of multi-component human milk fortifier, supplementation of human milk with calcium and/or phosphorus alone is no longer common practice. Future trials should consider assessing effects of multi-component fortifiers with different mineral compositions on clinically important outcomes during the neonatal period and in later childhood.

Oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a major public health issue with rates increasing globally. Gestational diabetes, glucose intolerance first recognised during pregnancy, usually resolves after birth and is associated with short- and long-term complications for the mother and her infant. Treatment options can include oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies for treating women with GDM. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (14 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP (14 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies for treating pregnant women with GDM. We included studies comparing oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies with 1) placebo/standard care, 2) another oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy, 3) combined oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies. Trials using insulin as the comparator were excluded as they are the subject of a separate Cochrane systematic review.Women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. Two review authors independently extracted data and data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies (19 publications) (1487 women and their babies). Eight studies had data that could be included in meta-analyses. Studies were conducted in Brazil, India, Israel, UK, South Africa and USA. The studies varied in diagnostic criteria and treatment targets for glycaemic control for GDM. The overall risk of bias was 'unclear' due to inadequate reporting of methodology. Using GRADE the quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low quality. Evidence was downgraded for risk of bias (reporting bias, lack of blinding), inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and for oral anti-diabetic therapy versus placebo for generalisability. Oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies versus placebo/standard careThere was no evidence of a difference between glibenclamide and placebo groups for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.90; one study, 375 women, very low-quality evidence), birth by caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.34; one study, 375 women, very low-quality evidence), perineal trauma (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; one study, 375 women, very low-quality evidence) or induction of labour (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.76; one study, 375 women; very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for development of type 2 diabetes or other pre-specified GRADE maternal outcomes (return to pre-pregnancy weight, postnatal depression). For the infant, there was no evidence of a difference in the risk of being born large-for-gestational age (LGA) between infants whose mothers had been treated with glibenclamide and those in the placebo group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.58; one study, 375, low-quality evidence). No data were reported for other infant primary or GRADE outcomes (perinatal mortality, death or serious morbidity composite, neurosensory disability in later childhood, neonatal hypoglycaemia, adiposity, diabetes). Metformin versus glibenclamideThere was no evidence of a difference between metformin- and glibenclamide-treated groups for the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.30; three studies, 508 women, moderate-quality evidence), birth by caesarean section (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.20; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.72, four studies, 554 women, I2 = 61%, Tau2 = 0.07 low-quality evidence), induction of labour (0.81, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.07; one study, 159 women; low-quality evidence) or perineal trauma (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.22 to 12.52; two studies, 158 women; low-quality evidence). No data were reported for development of type 2 diabetes or other pre-specified GRADE maternal outcomes (return to pre-pregnancy weight, postnatal depression). For the infant there was no evidence of a difference between the metformin- and glibenclamide-exposed groups for the risk of being born LGA (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.83; two studies, 246 infants, I2 = 54%, Tau2 = 0.30 low-quality evidence). Metformin was associated with a decrease in a death or serious morbidity composite (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.94; one study, 159 infants, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups for neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.77; four studies, 554 infants, low-quality evidence) or perinatal mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.55, two studies, 359 infants). No data were reported for neurosensory disability in later childhood or for adiposity or diabetes. Glibenclamide versus acarboseThere was no evidence of a difference between glibenclamide and acarbose from one study (43 women) for any of their maternal or infant primary outcomes (caesarean section, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.70; low-quality evidence; perinatal mortality - no events; low-quality evidence; LGA , RR 2.38, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.46; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between glibenclamide and acarbose for neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 6.33, 95% CI 0.87 to 46.32; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported for other pre-specified GRADE or primary maternal outcomes (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, development of type 2 diabetes, perineal trauma, return to pre-pregnancy weight, postnatal depression, induction of labour) or neonatal outcomes (death or serious morbidity composite, adiposity or diabetes). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were insufficient data comparing oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies with placebo/standard care (lifestyle advice) to inform clinical practice. There was insufficient high-quality evidence to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions as to the benefits of one oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy over another due to limited reporting of data for the primary and secondary outcomes in this review. Short- and long-term clinical outcomes for this review were inadequately reported or not reported. Current choice of oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy appears to be based on clinical preference, availability and national clinical practice guidelines.The benefits and potential harms of one oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy compared with another, or compared with placebo/standard care remains unclear and requires further research. Future trials should attempt to report on the core outcomes suggested in this review, in particular long-term outcomes for the woman and the infant that have been poorly reported to date, women's experiences and cost benefit.

Dietary supplementation with myo-inositol in women during pregnancy for treating gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is any degree of glucose intolerance that first presents and is recognised during pregnancy and usually resolves after the birth of the baby. GDM is associated with increased short- and long-term morbidity for the mother and her baby. Treatment usually includes lifestyle modification and/or pharmacological therapy (oral antidiabetic agents or insulin) with the aim to maintain treatment targets for blood glucose concentrations. Finding novel treatment agents which are effective, acceptable and safe for the mother and her baby are important. One such emerging potential intervention is myo-inositol which is an isomer of inositol and occurs endogenously and is found in natural dietary sources such as fruits, vegetables, nuts and cereals. OBJECTIVES: To assess if dietary supplementation with myo-inositol during pregnancy is safe and effective, for the mother and fetus, in treating gestational diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 April 2016), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials reporting on the use of myo-inositol compared with placebo, no treatment or another intervention for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes. Quasi-randomised and cross-over studies are not eligible for inclusion. Women with pre-existing diabetes were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. For key outcomes (where data were available), we assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies (142 women and infants), both were conducted in women in Italy and compared myo-inositol with a placebo control.None of the maternal primary outcomes pre-specified for this review were reported in the included studies: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; caesarean section; development of subsequent type 2 diabetes mellitus. No data were reported for the majority of this review's maternal secondary outcomes. We could only perform meta-analysis for two secondary outcomes: fasting oral glucose tolerance test and additional pharmacological treatment. All other results are based on data from single studies. Overall, the risk of bias of the included studies was judged to be unclear due to lack of key methodological information.There was no evidence of a difference between treatment groups in need for additional pharmacotherapy or weight gain during pregnancy, although myo-inositol was associated with a lower body mass index (BMI) change (mean difference (MD) -1.50 kg/m2; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.35 to -0.65; one trial, n = 73). Myo-inositol was associated with a reduction in the fasting blood glucose concentration at the end of treatment (MD -0.47 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.59 to -0.35; two trials, n = 142 women) compared with the control group. One small trial reported that myo-inositol was associated with a reduction in one-hour post-prandial blood glucose concentration at the end of treatment (MD -0.90 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.73 to -0.07; one trial, n = 73 women) compared with the control group. There was no difference between groups for the two-hour post-prandial blood glucose concentrations between groups (MD -0.70 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.46 to 0.06; one trial, n = 73 women). The one-hour and two-hour blood glucose concentrations show evidence of imprecision associated with wide CIs and small sample size.For the infant, there was no evidence of a difference in the risk for being born large-for-gestational age between the myo-inositol and the control group (risk ratio (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.02 to 8.58; one trial, n = 73 infants; low-quality evidence). The evidence was downgraded due to imprecision. This review's other primary outcomes were not reported in the included trials: perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality); mortality of morbidity composite (as defined by the trials); neurosensory disability. Infants in the myo-inositol group were less likely to have neonatal hypoglycaemia compared with the placebo group (RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.85; one study, n = 73 infants; low-quality evidence). There is evidence of imprecision for this outcome with low event rates and small sample size. There was no evidence of a difference between treatment and placebo groups for preterm birth or birthweight. Myo-inositol was associated with a later gestational age at birth compared with the placebo group (MD 2.10 weeks; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.93; one trial, n = 73 infants). No data were reported for any of the other neonatal outcomes for this review.No long-term outcomes were reported for the mother, infant as a child, infant as an adult, or health service outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data to evaluate the effect of myo-inositol for the treatment of gestational diabetes, with no data to examine the majority of outcomes in this review. There do not appear to be any benefits for the infant associated with exposure to myo-inositol such as reduced risk of being born large-for-gestational age. Although the risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia is reduced for the myo-inositol group, there is evidence of imprecision. Evidence from two studies suggested that myo-inositol was associated with a reduced change in maternal BMI and fasting blood sugar concentration compared with placebo. There is a lack of reporting of the clinically meaningful outcomes pre-specified for this review.Uncertainty of the effectiveness of myo-inositol as a treatment for GDM for key maternal and infant outcomes remains and further high- quality trials with appropriate sample sizes are required to further investigate the role of myo-inositol as a treatment or co-treatment for women with gestational diabetes. Future trials should report on the core outcomes for GDM identified in the methods section of this review. Participants of varying ethnicities and with varying risk factors for GDM should be included in future trials. In addition, further trials of myo-inositol for the treatment of GDM should explore the optimal dose, frequency and timing of supplementation, report on adverse effects and assess the long- term effects of this intervention. Economic analysis or health service use and costs should also be included.

Dietary supplements for dysmenorrhoea.

BACKGROUND: Dysmenorrhoea refers to painful menstrual cramps and is a common gynaecological complaint. Conventional treatments include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), which both reduce myometrial activity (contractions of the uterus). A suggested alternative approach is dietary supplements. We used the term 'dietary supplement' to include herbs or other botanical, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and amino acids. We excluded traditional Chinese medicines. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of dietary supplements for treating dysmenorrhoea. SEARCH METHODS: We searched sources including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO (all from inception to 23 March 2015), trial registries, and the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of dietary supplements for moderate or severe primary or secondary dysmenorrhoea. We excluded studies of women with an intrauterine device. Eligible comparators were other dietary supplements, placebo, no treatment, or conventional analgesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and adverse effects. We used a fixed-effect model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We presented data that were unsuitable for analysis either descriptively or in additional tables. We assessed the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs (3101 women). Most included studies were conducted amongst cohorts of students with primary dysmenorrhoea in their late teens or early twenties. Twenty-two studies were conducted in Iran and the rest were performed in other middle-income countries. Only one study addressed secondary dysmenorrhoea. Interventions included 12 different herbal medicines (German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla, M recutita, Chamomilla recutita), cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum, C. verum), Damask rose (Rosa damascena), dill (Anethum graveolens), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum), ginger (Zingiber officinale), guava (Psidium guajava), rhubarb (Rheum emodi), uzara (Xysmalobium undulatum), valerian (Valeriana officinalis), and zataria (Zataria multiflora)) and five non-herbal supplements (fish oil, melatonin, vitamins B1 and E, and zinc sulphate) in a variety of formulations and doses. Comparators included other supplements, placebo, no treatment, and NSAIDs.We judged all the evidence to be of low or very low quality. The main limitations were imprecision due to very small sample sizes, failure to report study methods, and inconsistency. For most comparisons there was only one included study, and very few studies reported adverse effects. Effectiveness of supplements for primary dysmenorrhoea We have presented pain scores (all on a visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 point scale) or rates of pain relief, or both, at the first post-treatment follow-up. Supplements versus placebo or no treatmentThere was no evidence of effectiveness for vitamin E (MD 0.00 points, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.34; two RCTs, 135 women).There was no consistent evidence of effectiveness for dill (MD -1.15 points, 95% CI -2.22 to -0.08, one RCT, 46 women), guava (MD 0.59, 95% CI -0.13 to 1.31; one RCT, 151 women); one RCT, 73 women), or fennel (MD -0.34 points, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.06; one RCT, 43 women).There was very limited evidence of effectiveness for fenugreek (MD -1.71 points, 95% CI -2.35 to -1.07; one RCT, 101 women), fish oil (MD 1.11 points, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77; one RCT, 120 women), fish oil plus vitamin B1 (MD -1.21 points, 95% CI -1.79 to -0.63; one RCT, 120 women), ginger (MD -1.55 points, 95% CI -2.43 to -0.68; three RCTs, 266 women; OR 5.44, 95% CI 1.80 to 16.46; one RCT, 69 women), valerian (MD -0.76 points, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.08; one RCT, 100 women), vitamin B1 alone (MD -2.70 points, 95% CI -3.32 to -2.08; one RCT, 120 women), zataria (OR 6.66, 95% CI 2.66 to 16.72; one RCT, 99 women), and zinc sulphate (MD -0.95 points, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.36; one RCT, 99 women).Data on chamomile and cinnamon versus placebo were unsuitable for analysis. Supplements versus NSAIDSThere was no evidence of any difference between NSAIDs and dill (MD 0.13 points, 95% CI -1.01 to 1.27; one RCT, 47 women), fennel (MD -0.70 points, 95% CI -1.81 to 0.41; one RCT, 59 women), guava (MD 1.19, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.96; one RCT, 155 women), rhubarb (MD -0.20 points, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.04; one RCT, 45 women), or valerian (MD points 0.62 , 95% CI 0.03 to 1.21; one RCT, 99 women),There was no consistent evidence of a difference between Damask rose and NSAIDs (MD -0.15 points, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.25; one RCT, 92 women).There was very limited evidence that chamomile was more effective than NSAIDs (MD -1.42 points, 95% CI -1.69 to -1.15; one RCT, 160 women). Supplements versus other supplementsThere was no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between ginger and zinc sulphate (MD 0.02 points, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.62; one RCT, 101 women). Vitamin B1 may be more effective than fish oil (MD -1.59 points, 95% CI -2.25 to -0.93; one RCT, 120 women). Effectiveness of supplements for secondary dysmenorrhoea There was no strong evidence of benefit for melatonin compared to placebo for dysmenorrhoea secondary to endometriosis (data were unsuitable for analysis). Safety of supplements Only four of the 27 included studies reported adverse effects in both treatment groups. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups but data were too scanty to reach any conclusions about safety. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no high quality evidence to support the effectiveness of any dietary supplement for dysmenorrhoea, and evidence of safety is lacking. However for several supplements there was some low quality evidence of effectiveness and more research is justified.

Different treatment regimens of magnesium sulphate for tocolysis in women in preterm labour.

BACKGROUND: Magnesium sulphate has been used to inhibit preterm labour to prevent preterm birth. There is no consensus as to the safety profile of different treatment regimens with respect to dose, duration, route and timing of administration. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of alternative magnesium sulphate regimens when used as single agent tocolytic therapy during pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing different magnesium sulphate treatment regimens when used as single agent tocolytic therapy during pregnancy in women in preterm labour. Quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over and cluster trials were not eligible for inclusion. Health outcomes were considered at the level of the mother, the infant/child and the health service. INTERVENTION: intravenous or oral magnesium sulphate given alone for tocolysis.Comparison: alternative dosing regimens of magnesium sulphate given alone for tocolysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials including 360 women and their infants were identified as eligible for inclusion in this review. Two trials were rated as low risk of bias for random sequence generation and concealment of allocation. A third trial was assessed as unclear risk of bias for these domains but did not report data for any of the outcomes examined in this review. No trials were rated to be of high quality overall.Intravenous magnesium sulphate was administered according to low-dose regimens (4 g loading dose followed by 2 g/hour continuous infusion and/or increased by 1 g/hour hourly until successful tocolysis or failure of treatment), or high-dose regimens (4 g loading dose followed by 5 g/hour continuous infusion and increased by 1 g/hour hourly until successful tocolysis or failure of treatment, or 6 g loading dose followed by 2 g/hour continuous infusion and increased by 1 g/hour hourly until successful tocolysis or failure of treatment).There were no differences seen between high-dose magnesium sulphate regimens compared with low-dose magnesium sulphate regimens for the primary outcome of fetal, neonatal and infant death (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 1.56; one trial, 100 infants). Using the GRADE approach, the evidence for fetal, neonatal and infant death was considered to be VERY LOW quality. No data were reported for any of the other primary maternal and infant health outcomes (birth less than 48 hours after trial entry; composite serious infant outcome; composite serious maternal outcome).There were no clear differences seen between high-dose magnesium sulphate regimens compared with low-dose magnesium sulphate regimens for the secondary infant health outcomes of fetal death; neonatal death; and rate of hypocalcaemia, osteopenia or fracture; and secondary maternal health outcomes of rate of caesarean birth; pulmonary oedema; and maternal self-reported adverse effects. Pulmonary oedema was reported in two women given high-dose magnesium sulphate, but not in any of the women given low-dose magnesium sulphate.In a single trial of high and low doses of magnesium sulphate for tocolysis including 100 infants, the risk of respiratory distress syndrome was lower with use of a high-dose regimen compared with a low-dose regimen (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.88; one trial, 100 infants). Using the GRADE approach, the evidence for respiratory distress syndrome was judged to be LOW quality. No difference was seen in the rate of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. However, for those babies admitted, a high-dose regimen was associated with a reduction in the length of stay in the neonatal intensive care unit compared with a low-dose regimen (mean difference -3.10 days, 95% confidence interval -5.48 to -0.72).We found no data for the majority of our secondary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are limited data available (three studies, with data from only two studies) comparing different dosing regimens of magnesium sulphate given as single agent tocolytic therapy for the prevention of preterm birth. There is no evidence examining duration of therapy, timing of therapy and the role for repeat dosing.Downgrading decisions for our primary outcome of fetal, neonatal and infant death were based on wide confidence intervals (crossing the line of no effect), lack of blinding and a limited number of studies. No data were available for any of our other important outcomes: birth less than 48 hours after trial entry; composite serious infant outcome; composite serious maternal outcome. The data are limited by volume and the outcomes reported. Only eight of our 45 pre-specified primary and secondary maternal and infant health outcomes were reported on in the included studies. No long-term outcomes were reported. Downgrading decisions for the evidence on the risk of respiratory distress were based on wide confidence intervals (crossing the line of no effect) and lack of blinding.There is some evidence from a single study suggesting a reduction in the length of stay in the neonatal intensive care unit and a reduced risk of respiratory distress syndrome where a high-dose regimen of magnesium sulphate has been used compared with a low-dose regimen. However, given that evidence has been drawn from a single study (with a small sample size), these data should be interpreted with caution.Magnesium sulphate has been shown to be of benefit in a wide range of obstetric settings, although it has not been recommended for tocolysis. In clinical settings where health benefits are established, further trials are needed to address the lack of evidence regarding the optimal dose (loading dose and maintenance dose), duration of therapy, timing of therapy and role for repeat dosing in terms of efficacy and safety for mothers and their children. Ongoing examination of different regimens with respect to important health outcomes is required.

Antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol in women during pregnancy for preventing gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes, glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy, is a rising problem worldwide. Both non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches to the prevention of gestational diabetes have been, and continue to be explored. Myo-inositol, an isomer of inositol, is a naturally occurring sugar commonly found in cereals, corn, legumes and meat. It is one of the intracellular mediators of the insulin signal and correlated with insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes. The potential beneficial effect on improving insulin sensitivity suggests that myo-inositol may be useful for women in preventing gestational diabetes. OBJECTIVES: To assess if antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol is safe and effective, for the mother and fetus, in preventing gestational diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP (2 November 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought published and unpublished randomised controlled trials, including conference abstracts, assessing the effects of myo-inositol for the prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Quasi-randomised and cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion, but cluster designs were eligible. Participants in the trials were pregnant women. Women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes were excluded. Trials that compared the administration of any dose of myo-inositol, alone or in a combination preparation were eligible for inclusion. Trials that used no treatment, placebo or another intervention as the comparator were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, risk of bias and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included four randomised controlled trials (all conducted in Italy) reporting on 567 women who were less than 11 weeks' to 24 weeks' pregnant at the start of the trials. The trials had small sample sizes and one trial only reported an interim analysis. Two trials were open-label. The overall risk of bias was unclear.For the mother, supplementation with myo-inositol was associated with a reduction in the incidence of gestational diabetes compared with control (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.64; three trials; n = 502 women). Using GRADE methods this evidence was assessed as low with downgrading due to unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment in two of the included trials and lack of generalisability of findings. For women who received myo-inositol supplementation, the incidence of GDM ranged from 8% to 18%; for women in the control group, the incidence of GDM was 28%, using International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel 2010 criteria to diagnose GDM.Two trials reported on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, a primary maternal outcome of this review. There was no clear difference in risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between the myo-inositol and control groups (average RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.41; two trials; n = 398 women; Tau(2) = 3.23; I(2) = 69%). Using GRADE methods, this evidence was assessed as very low, with downgrading due to wide confidence intervals with very low event rates, a small sample size, and lack of blinding and unclear allocation concealment methods, and a lack of generalisability. For women who received myo-inositol the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy ranged from 0% to 33%; for women in the control group the risk was 4%.For the infant, none of the included trials reported on the primary neonatal outcomes of this systematic review (large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite).In terms of this review's secondary outcomes, there was no clear difference in the risk of caesarean section between the myo-inositol and control groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.19; two trials; n = 398 women). Using GRADE methods, this evidence was assessed as low, with downgrading due to unclear risk of bias in one trial and lack of generalisability. For women who received myo-inositol supplementation, the risk of having a caesarean section ranged from 34% to 54%; for women in the control group the was 45%. There were no maternal adverse effects of therapy in the two trials that reported on this outcome (the other two trials did not report this outcome).Two trials found no clear difference in the risk of macrosomia between infants whose mothers received myo-inositol supplementation compared with controls (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.02 to 6.37; two trials; n = 398 infants;Tau(2) = 3.33; I(2) = 73%). Similarly, there was no clear difference between groups in terms of neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.66) or shoulder dystocia (average RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.12 to 44.30, Tau(2) = 3.24; I(2) = 72%).There was a lack of data available for a large number of maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes, and no data for any of the long-term childhood or adulthood outcomes, or for health service cost outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from four trials of antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol during pregnancy shows a potential benefit for reducing the incidence of gestational diabetes. No data were reported for any of this review's primary neonatal outcomes. There were very little outcome data for the majority of this review's secondary outcomes. There is no clear evidence of a difference for macrosomia when compared with control.The current evidence is based on small trials that are not powered to detect differences in outcomes including perinatal mortality and serious infant morbidity. All of the included studies were conducted in Italy which raises concerns about the lack of generalisability of the evidence to other settings. There is evidence of inconsistency and indirectness and as a result, many of the judgements on the quality of the evidence were downgraded to low or very low quality (GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool).Further trials for this promising antenatal intervention for preventing gestational diabetes are encouraged and should include pregnant women of different ethnicities and varying risk factors and use of myo-inositol (different doses, frequency and timing of administration) in comparison with placebo, diet and exercise or pharmacological interventions. Outcomes should include potential harms including adverse effects.

Acupressure magnets: a possible MRI hazard.

The use of magnets as a component of complementary and alternative medicine is increasingly common. Magnet therapy is used to treat a variety of conditions and often involves tiny magnets adhered to the skin. In auriculotherapy, magnets are placed in specific locations of the ear pinnae which represent particular parts of the body. While generally considered safe, these magnets have the potential to cause imaging problems and serious injury during MRI. We report a case of auriculotherapy magnets which escaped detection despite the use of screening forms and a walk-through metal detector. The magnets caused image artifact but no other patient harm. We recommend updating patient screening practices and educating providers placing therapeutic magnets and performing MRIs of this new potential MRI hazard.

Endometriosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: This overview reports on interventions for pain relief and for subfertility in pre-menopausal women with clinically diagnosed endometriosis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this overview was to summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on treatment options for women with pain or subfertility associated with endometriosis. METHODS: Published Cochrane systematic reviews reporting pain or fertility outcomes in women with clinically diagnosed endometriosis were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation (protocols and titles) for future inclusion. The reviews, protocols and titles were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Archie (the Cochrane information management system) in March 2014.Pain-related outcomes of the overview were pain relief, clinical improvement or resolution and pain recurrence. Fertility-related outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events.Selection of systematic reviews, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken in duplicate. Review quality was assessed using the AMSTAR tool. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using GRADE methods. Review findings were summarised in the text and the data for each outcome were reported in 'Additional tables'. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen systematic reviews published in The Cochrane Library were included. All the reviews were high quality. The quality of the evidence for specific comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary studies, inconsistency between the studies, and imprecision in effect estimates. Pain relief (14 reviews) Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues One systematic review reported low quality evidence of an overall benefit for GnRH analogues compared with placebo or no treatment. Ovulation suppression Five systematic reviews reported on medical treatment using ovulation suppression. There was moderate quality evidence that the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUD) was more effective than expectant management, and very low quality evidence that danazol was more effective than placebo. There was no consistent evidence of a difference in effectiveness between oral contraceptives and goserelin, estrogen plus progestogen and placebo, or progestogens and placebo, though in all cases the relevant evidence was of low or very low quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS)A review of NSAIDs reported inconclusive evidence of a benefit in symptom relief compared with placebo. Surgical interventions There were two reviews of surgical interventions. One reported moderate quality evidence of a benefit in pain relief following laparoscopic surgery compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. The other reported very low quality evidence that recurrence rates of endometriomata were lower after excisional surgery than after ablative surgery. Post-surgical medical interventions Two reviews reported on post-surgical medical interventions. Neither found evidence of an effect on pain outcomes, though in both cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Alternative medicine There were two systematic reviews of alternative medicine. One reported evidence of a benefit from auricular acupuncture compared to Chinese herbal medicine, and the other reported no evidence of a difference between Chinese herbal medicine and danazol. In both cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Anti-TNF-α drugs One review found no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between anti-TNF-α drugs and placebo. However, the evidence was of low quality. Reviews reporting fertility outcomes (8 reviews) Medical interventions Four reviews reported on medical interventions for improving fertility in women with endometriosis. One compared three months of GnRH agonists with a control in women undergoing assisted reproduction and found very low quality evidence of an increase in clinical pregnancies in the treatment group. There was no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between the interventions in the other three reviews, which compared GnRH agonists versus antagonists, ovulation suppression versus placebo or no treatment, and pre-surgical medical therapy versus surgery alone. In all cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Surgical interventions Three reviews reported on surgical interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that both live births or ongoing pregnancy rates and clinical pregnancy rates were higher after laparoscopic surgery than after diagnostic laparoscopy alone. There was low quality evidence of no difference in effectiveness between surgery and expectant management for endometrioma. One review found low quality evidence that excisional surgery resulted in higher clinical pregnancy rates than drainage or ablation of endometriomata. Post-surgical interventions Two reviews reported on post-surgical medical interventions. They found no evidence of an effect on clinical pregnancy rates. The evidence was of low or very low quality. Alternative medicine A review of Chinese herbal medicine in comparison with gestrinone found no evidence of a difference between the groups in clinical pregnancy rates. However, the evidence was of low quality. Adverse events Reviews of GnRH analogues and of danazol reported that the interventions were associated with higher rates of adverse effects than placebo; and depot progestagens were associated with higher rates of adverse events than other treatments. Chinese herbal medicine was associated with fewer side effects than gestrinone or danazol.Three reviews reported miscarriage as an outcome. No difference was found between surgical and diagnostic laparoscopy, between GnRH agonists and antagonists, or between aspiration of endometrioma and expectant management. However, in all cases the quality of the evidence was of low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For women with pain and endometriosis, suppression of menstrual cycles with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUD) and danazol were beneficial interventions. Laparoscopic treatment of endometriosis and excision of endometriomata were also associated with improvements in pain. The evidence on NSAIDs was inconclusive. There was no evidence of benefit with post-surgical medical treatment.In women with endometriosis undergoing assisted reproduction, three months of treatment with GnRH agonist improved pregnancy rates. Excisional surgery improved spontaneous pregnancy rates in the nine to 12 months after surgery compared to ablative surgery. Laparoscopic surgery improved live birth and pregnancy rates compared to diagnostic laparoscopy alone. There was no evidence that medical treatment improved clinical pregnancy rates.Evidence on harms was scanty, but GnRH analogues, danazol and depot progestagens were associated with higher rates than other interventions.

Phytoestrogens for menopausal vasomotor symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flushes and night sweats, are very common during the menopausal transition. Hormone therapy has traditionally been used as a highly effective treatment, but concerns about increased risk of some chronic diseases have markedly increased the interest of women in alternative treatments. Some of the most popular of these treatments are foods or supplements enriched with phytoestrogens-plant-derived chemicals that have estrogenic action. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, safety and acceptability of food products, extracts and dietary supplements containing high levels of phytoestrogens when compared with no treatment, placebo or hormone therapy for the amelioration of vasomotor menopausal symptoms (such as hot flushes and night sweats) in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: Searches targeted the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of randomised trials (29 July 2013), the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 29 July 2013), MEDLINE (inception to 29 July 2013), EMBASE (inception to 29 July 2013), AMED (1985 to 29 July 2013), PsycINFO (inception to 29 July 2013) and CINAHL (inception to 29 July 2013). Attempts were made to access grey literature by sending letters to pharmaceutical companies and performing searches of ongoing trial registers. Reference lists of included trials were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised, included perimenopausal or postmenopausal participants with vasomotor symptoms (hot flushes or night sweats), lasted at least 12 weeks and provided interventions such as foods or supplements with high levels of phytoestrogens (not combined with other herbal treatments). Trials that included women who had breast cancer or a history of breast cancer were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Selection of trials, extraction of data and assessment of quality were undertaken by at least two review authors. Most trials were too dissimilar for their results to be combined in a meta-analysis, so these findings are provided in narrative 'Summary of results' tables. Studies were grouped into broad categories: dietary soy, soy extracts, red clover extracts, genistein extracts and other types of phytoestrogens. Five trials used Promensil, a red clover extract; results of these trials were combined in a meta-analysis, and summary effect measures were calculated. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 43 randomised controlled trials (4,364 participants) were included in this review. Very few trials provided data suitable for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Among the five trials that yielded data assessing the daily frequency of hot flushes suitable for pooling, no significant difference overall was noted in the incidence of hot flushes between participants taking Promensil (a red clover extract) and those given placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.95 to 0.10, I(2) = 31%). No evidence indicated a difference in percentage reduction in hot flushes in two trials between Promensil and placebo (MD 20.15, 95% CI -12.08 to 52.38, I(2) = 82%). Four trials that were not combined in meta-analyses suggested that extracts with high (> 30 mg/d) levels of genistein consistently reduced the frequency of hot flushes. Individual results from the remaining trials were compared in broad subgroups such as dietary soy, soy extracts and other types of phytoestrogens that could not be combined. Some of these trials found that phytoestrogen treatments alleviated the frequency and severity of hot flushes and night sweats when compared with placebo, but many trials were small and were determined to be at high risk of bias. A strong placebo effect was noted in most trials, with a reduction in frequency ranging from 1% to 59% with placebo. No indication suggested that discrepant results were due to the amount of isoflavone in the active treatment arm, the severity of vasomotor symptoms or trial quality factors. Also, no evidence indicated that these treatments caused oestrogenic stimulation of the endometrium or the vagina or other adverse effects when used for up to two years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No conclusive evidence shows that phytoestrogen supplements effectively reduce the frequency or severity of hot flushes and night sweats in perimenopausal or postmenopausal women, although benefits derived from concentrates of genistein should be further investigated.

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

BACKGROUND: A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This difficulty with conception may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. The reported prevalence of subfertility has increased significantly over the past twenty years. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may be a result of female problems, including ovulatory disorders, poor egg quality, fallopian tube damage and endometriosis. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assessed the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (from inception to April 2013) with no language restrictions applied: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS and OpenSIGLE. We also searched conference abstracts and citation lists in the ISI Web of Knowledge. Ongoing trials were searched in the Trials Registers. Reference lists were checked, and a search on Google was performed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. Trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that exclusively included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently screened 2127 titles and abstracts, and 67 of these potentially eligible trials were appraised for inclusion and quality through review of full texts and contact with authors. Three review authors were involved in data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. Review authors also collected data on adverse events as reported from the trials. Studies were pooled using fixed-effect models; however, if high heterogeneity was found, a random-effects model was used. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the dichotomous outcomes of live birth, clinical pregnancy and adverse events. Analyses were stratified by type of antioxidant, by indications for subfertility and by those women also undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection techniques (ICSIs). The overall quality of the evidence was assessed by applying GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 28 trials involving 3548 women were included in this review. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including combinations of antioxidants, pentoxifylline, N-acetyl-cysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, vitamin E, myo-inositol, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids with placebo, with no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant.Antioxidants were not associated with an increased live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.26, P = 0.82, 2 RCTs, 97 women, I(2) = 75%, very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 37%, the rate among women taking antioxidants would be between 10% and 83%.Antioxidants were not associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.85, P = 0.14, 13 RCTs, 2441 women, I(2)= 55%, very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 23%, the rate among women taking antioxidants would be between 22% and 36%.Only one trial reported on live birth in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, and two trials reported on clinical pregnancy in this comparison. Only subtotals were used in this analysis, and meta-analysis was not possible as each trial used a different antioxidant.Pentoxifylline was associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.44, P = 0.009, 3 RCTs, 276 women, I(2) = 0%).Adverse events were reported by 14 trials in the meta-analysis and included miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy and gastrointestinal effects. No evidence revealed a difference in adverse effects between antioxidant groups and control groups, but these data were limited.The overall quality of evidence was 'very low' to 'low' because of poor reporting of outcomes, the number of small studies included, high risk of bias within studies and heterogeneity in the primary analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the evidence in the 'antioxidant versus placebo/no treatment' and in the 'antioxidant versus antioxidant' comparisons was assessed to be 'very low'. Antioxidants were not associated with an increased live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. There was some evidence of an association of pentoxifylline with an increased clinical pregnancy rate; however, there were only three trials included in this comparison. Future trials may change this result. Variation in the types of antioxidants given meant that we could not assess whether one antioxidant was better than another. There did not appear to be any association of antioxidants with adverse effects for women, but data for these outcomes were limited.

A qualitative approach using the integrative model of behaviour change to identify intervention strategies to increase optimal child restraint practices among culturally and linguistically diverse families in New South Wales.

OBJECTIVES: To qualitatively explore barriers to optimal child restraint use using the integrative behaviour change model in culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. METHODS: A semi-structured discussion was used to conduct 11 language specific focus groups in Arabic, Assyrian, Cantonese, Mandarin, Vietnamese and Turkish. Translated transcriptions were analysed using the major concepts of the integrative behaviour change model. RESULTS: Restraint use intent among CALD community carers is related to perceived safety of their children and complying with the law. While most participants appreciated the safety benefits of correct and appropriate use, a minority did not. Child restraint legislation may positively influence social norms, and enforcement appears to increase parental self-efficacy. However, concerns over child comfort may negatively influence both norms and self-efficacy. There are clear deficits in knowledge that may act as barriers as well as confusion over best practice in safely transporting children. Large family size, vehicle size and cost appear to be real environmental constraints in CALD communities. CONCLUSION: Determinants of intent and deficits in knowledge in this diverse range of CALD communities in NSW Australia are similar to those reported in other qualitative studies regardless of the population studied. This indicates that key messages should be the same regardless of the target population. However, for CALD communities there is a specific need to ensure access to detailed information through appropriate delivery strategies and languages. Furthermore, practical constraints such as cost of restraints and family size may be particularly important in CALD communities.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues for pain associated with endometriosis.

EDITORIAL NOTE: See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37341141/ for a more recent review that covers this topic and has superseded this review. BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition, characterised by the presence of endometrial tissue in sites other than the uterine cavity (excluding adenomyosis) that frequently presents with pain. The gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) comprise one intervention that has been offered for pain relief in pre-menopausal women. GnRHas can be administered intranasally, by subcutaneous, or intramuscular injection. They are thought to result in down regulation of the pituitary and induce a hypogonadotrophic hypogonadal state. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of GnRHas in the treatment of the painful symptoms associated with endometriosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group specialist register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCInfo and CINAHL were conducted in April 2010 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of GnRHas as treatment for pain associated with endometriosis versus no treatment, placebo, danazol, intra-uterine progestagens, or other GnRHas were included. Trials using add-back therapy, oral contraceptives, surgical intervention, GnRH antagonists or complementary therapies were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The primary outcome was pain relief. Relative risk was used as the measure of effect for dichotomous data. For continuous data, mean differences or standardised mean differences were used. MAIN RESULTS: Forty one trials (n=4935 women) were included. The evidence suggested that GnRHas were more effective at symptom relief than no treatment/placebo. There was no statistically significant difference between GnRHas and danazol for dysmenorrhoea RR 0.98 (95%CI 0.92 to 1.04; P = 0.53). This equates to 3 fewer women per 1000 (95%CI 12 to 6) with symptomatic pain relief in the GnRHa group. More adverse events were reported in the GnRHa group. There was a benefit in overall resolution for GnRHas RR1.10 (95%CI 1.01 to 1.21, P=0.03) compared with danazol. There was no statistically significant difference in overall pain between GnRHas and levonorgestrel SMD -0.25 (95%CI -0.60 to 0.10, P=0.46). Evidence was limited on optimal dosage or duration of treatment for GnRHas. No route of administration appeared superior to another. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: GnRHas appear to be more effective at relieving pain associated with endometriosis than no treatment/placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in pain relief between GnRHas and danazol although more adverse events reported in the GnRHa groups. There was no evidence of a difference in pain relief between GnRHas and levonorgestrel and no studies compared GnRHas with analgesics.