Evaluating patient experience to improve care in a specialist antenatal clinic for pregnancy after loss.

In the United Kingdom, roughly 1 in 250 babies are stillborn each year. Most women who experience stillbirth become pregnant again - 80% within a year of loss. Presently, obstetric-led care is recommended; though there is a growing body of evidence to support provision of specialist services. The Rainbow Clinic is a specialist antenatal service providing care for pregnancies after loss incorporating clinical and psychological care. This study aimed to assess patient experience at the Rainbow Clinic and identify areas for clinical improvement. A 13-item questionnaire was distributed to pregnant women who attended the Rainbow Clinics at the Oxford Road and Wythenshawe sites of Saint Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK between July 2016 and June 2021. Descriptive statistics and unpaired t-test were used for quantitative data and summative content analysis for qualitative data. Four-hundred and fifty-six women completed the questionnaire. The mean patient experience score per quarter was stable with an average of 21.1 (± 3.0) for the five years, with a maximum attainable score of 25. The COVID-19 pandemic had no effect on patient experience at the Rainbow Clinic (pre-pandemic vs. during-pandemic: mean 21.2 v 21.3; p = 0.75). Free-text responses demonstrated women felt positively about the antenatal care received. Identified areas for improvement included "more awareness of the [Rainbow] sticker" to ensure women with previous loss are identified; increased publicity of the Rainbow Clinic services; developing more clinics at different locations to improve accessibility; and continuing specialist input into intrapartum care. Specialist antenatal care provided by the Rainbow Clinic was rated as of a high standard. Potential future improvements include sticker alterations (or other mechanisms to identify women who have experienced a previous loss) and develop increased awareness of the clinic in other institutions.

Fetal movements: A framework for antenatal conversations.

BACKGROUND: Presentations for decreased fetal movements comprise a significant proportion of acute antenatal assessments. Decreased fetal movements are associated with increased likelihood of adverse pregnancy outcomes including stillbirth. Consensus-based guidelines recommend pregnant women routinely receive information about fetal movements, but practice is inconsistent, and the information shared is frequently not evidence-based. There are also knowledge gaps about the assessment and management of fetal movement concerns. Women have indicated that they would like more accurate information about what to expect regarding fetal movements. DISCUSSION: Historically, fetal movement information has focussed on movement counts. This is problematic, as the number of fetal movements perceived varies widely between pregnant women, and no set number of movements has been established as a reliable indicator of fetal wellbeing. Of late, maternity care providers have also advised women to observe their baby's movement pattern, and promptly present if they notice a change. However, normal fetal movement patterns are rarely defined. Recently, a body of research has emerged relating to maternal perception of fetal movement features such as strength, presence of hiccups, and diurnal pattern as indicators of fetal wellbeing in addition to frequency. CONCLUSION: Sharing comprehensive and gestation-appropriate information about fetal movements may be more satisfying for women, empowering women to identify for themselves when their baby is doing well, and importantly when additional assessment is needed. We propose a conversational approach to fetal movement information sharing, focusing on fetal movement strength, frequency, circadian pattern, and changes with normal fetal development, tailored to the individual.

Role of ethnicity in high-level obstetric clinical incidents: a review of cases from a large UK NHS maternity unit.

INTRODUCTION: Women from ethnic minority groups are at more risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancy compared with those from white British groups; suboptimal care may contribute to this increased risk. This study aimed to examine serious clinical incidents at two maternity units to explore causative factors for women from ethnic minorities and determine whether these differed from white women. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all serious incidents (n=36) occurring in a large National Health Service maternity provider (~14 000 births per annum) between 2018 and 2020. Data were collected from case records for variables which could mediate the association between ethnicity and adverse outcome. The incident reviews were blinded and reviewed by two independent investigators and data regarding root causes and contributory factors were extracted. RESULTS: Fourteen of the 36 incidents (39%) occurred in women from minority ethnic groups, which is comparable to the maternity population. Women involved in serious clinical incidents frequently had pre-existing medical or obstetric complications. Booking after 12 weeks' gestation occurred more frequently in women from minority ethnic groups than in the background population. There were differences in root causes of serious incidents between groups, a lack of situational awareness was the most frequent cause in white women and staff workload was most frequent in women from minority ethnic groups. Communication issues and detection of deterioration were similar between the two groups. DISCUSSION: Although there was no difference in the proportion of serious incidents between the groups, there were differences in medical and pregnancy-related risk factors between groups and in the root causes identified. Efforts are needed to ensure equity of early access to antenatal care and to ensure that there is adequate staffing to ensure that women's needs are met; this is particularly cogent when there are complex medical or social needs.

Fetal umbilical artery Doppler as a tool for universal third trimester screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

The objective of this study was to investigate the accuracy of universal third trimester umbilical artery (UA) Doppler to predict adverse pregnancy outcome at term. We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to October 2020 and we also analyzed previously unpublished data from a prospective cohort study of nulliparous women, the Pregnancy Outcome Prediction (POP) study. We included studies that performed a third-trimester ultrasound scan in unselected, low or mixed risk populations, excluding studies which only included high risk pregnancies. Meta-analysis was performed using the hierarchal summary receiver operating characteristic curve (HSROC) analysis and bivariate logit-normal models. We identified 13 studies (including the POP study) involving 67,764 pregnancies which met our inclusion criteria. The overall quality was variable and only six studies (N = 5777 patients) blinded clinicians to the UA Doppler result. The summary sensitivity and positive likelihood ratio (LR) for small for gestational age (SGA; birthweight <10th centile) were 21.7% (95% CI 13.2-33.6%) and 2.65 (95% CI 1.89-3.72) respectively. The summary positive LR for NICU admission and metabolic acidosis were 1.35 (95% CI 0.93-1.97) and 1.34 (95% CI 0.86-2.08) respectively. The results were similar in the POP study: associations with SGA (positive LR 2.66 [95% CI 2.11-3.36]) and severe SGA (birthweight <3rd centile; positive LR 3.27 [95% CI 2.29-4.68]) but no statistically significant association with neonatal morbidity. We conclude that third trimester UA Doppler has moderate predictive accuracy for small for gestational age but not for indicators of neonatal morbidity in unselected and low risk pregnancies.

Universal late pregnancy ultrasound screening to predict adverse outcomes in nulliparous women: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, pregnant women are screened using ultrasound to perform gestational aging, typically at around 12 weeks' gestation, and around the middle of pregnancy. Ultrasound scans thereafter are performed for clinical indications only. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the case for offering universal late pregnancy ultrasound to all nulliparous women in the UK. The main questions addressed were the diagnostic effectiveness of universal late pregnancy ultrasound to predict adverse outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of either implementing universal ultrasound or conducting further research in this area. DESIGN: We performed diagnostic test accuracy reviews of five ultrasonic measurements in late pregnancy. We conducted cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analyses of screening for fetal presentation, screening for small for gestational age fetuses and screening for large for gestational age fetuses. Finally, we conducted a survey and a focus group to determine the willingness of women to participate in a future randomised controlled trial. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 2019. REVIEW METHODS: The protocol for the review was designed a priori and registered. Eligible studies were identified using keywords, with no restrictions for language or location. The risk of bias in studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Health economic modelling employed a decision tree analysed via Monte Carlo simulation. Health outcomes were from the fetal perspective and presented as quality-adjusted life-years. Costs were from the perspective of the public sector, defined as NHS England, and the costs of special educational needs. All costs and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted by 3.5% per annum and the reference case time horizon was 20 years. RESULTS: Umbilical artery Doppler flow velocimetry, cerebroplacental ratio, severe oligohydramnios and borderline oligohydramnios were all either non-predictive or weakly predictive of the risk of neonatal morbidity (summary positive likelihood ratios between 1 and 2) and were all weakly predictive of the risk of delivering a small for gestational age infant (summary positive likelihood ratios between 2 and 4). Suspicion of fetal macrosomia is strongly predictive of the risk of delivering a large infant, but it is only weakly, albeit statistically significantly, predictive of the risk of shoulder dystocia. Very few studies blinded the result of the ultrasound scan and most studies were rated as being at a high risk of bias as a result of treatment paradox, ascertainment bias or iatrogenic harm. Health economic analysis indicated that universal ultrasound for fetal presentation only may be both clinically and economically justified on the basis of existing evidence. Universal ultrasound including fetal biometry was of borderline cost-effectiveness and was sensitive to assumptions. Value-of-information analysis indicated that the parameter that had the largest impact on decision uncertainty was the net difference in cost between an induced delivery and expectant management. LIMITATIONS: The primary literature on the diagnostic effectiveness of ultrasound in late pregnancy is weak. Value-of-information analysis may have underestimated the uncertainty in the literature as it was focused on the internal validity of parameters, which is quantified, whereas the greatest uncertainty may be in the external validity to the research question, which is unquantified. CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening for presentation at term may be justified on the basis of current knowledge. The current literature does not support universal ultrasonic screening for fetal growth disorders. FUTURE WORK: We describe proof-of-principle randomised controlled trials that could better inform the case for screening using ultrasound in late pregnancy. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017064093. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Ultrasound scans allow doctors to check on the health of an unborn infant. Usually, all pregnant women receive a scan at about 3 months and about 5 months of pregnancy. After that, women are offered a scan during birth only if they have risk factors or if a problem develops. Problems can arise in the later stages of pregnancy, including issues with the infant's growth or whether or not the infant is breech. Some of these problems may be prevented if a scan is carried out, but scans can also be inaccurate. When they are, a woman may receive unnecessary treatment, which could even harm her or her infant. In this study we set out to review previous research about how good ultrasound scanning is at detecting infants who may be born with a condition. This study focused on detecting if the infant was too big or too small. Unfortunately, much of the previous research was not carried out to a high standard. Scanning can detect the size of a infant relatively well, but it is much less clear if scanning can predict complications that may harm the infant during birth. We also studied the costs and outcomes of scanning. We calculated the extra cost required to scan every woman and compared this with the extra benefits from preventing complications. One thing that ultrasound scans detect is whether the infant is presenting head first or bottom first (a 'breech presentation'), as infants presenting breech have high risks of complications. Scanning all women to check whether or not their infant is presenting breech seems to be cost-effective and the cost savings may even be higher than the cost of implementation, although this depends on how much the scan would cost. Whether or not it is worthwhile scanning all infants to see if they are above or below the thresholds for normal size is less clear. A larger research study could provide more reliable numbers from which to draw a conclusion. We show how such a study could be designed, so that a single study could tell us both how well scans can predict adverse outcomes and how helpful this information is.

Verification of placental growth factor and soluble-fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 assay performance in late pregnancy and their diagnostic test accuracy in women with reduced fetal movement.

BACKGROUND: Placental growth factor (PlGF) and soluble-fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) are biomarkers of placental function used to aid the diagnosis and prediction of pregnancy complications. This work verified the analytical performance of both biomarkers and provides preliminary diagnostic accuracy data to identify adverse pregnancy outcome in women with reduced fetal movement. METHODS: Verification of sFlt-1 and PlGF assays included a comparative accuracy assessment of 24 serum samples analysed at six different sites and laboratory-specific precision estimates. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was assessed in serum samples obtained prospectively from 295 women with reduced fetal movement ≥36 weeks' gestation; diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using 2 × 2 tables and area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curve. RESULTS: Regression analysis showed that performance between sites was good with Passing-Bablok slopes ranging from 0.96 to 1.05 (sFlt-1) and 0.93 to 1.08 (PlGF). All sites had a mean bias <15%, although there was poorer agreement at the lowest PlGF concentrations. All within- and between-batch coefficients of variation were <10%. In 289 women with an appropriately grown fetus, an sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥38 had a sensitivity of 0.20 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07, 0.41), specificity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.83, 0.92) and AUROC curve of 0.58 (95% CI 0.47, 0.68) to identify adverse pregnancy outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Analytical performance of the sFlt-1 and PlGF assays was comparable across different sites. The sensitivity of sFlt-1/PlGF to identify adverse pregnancy outcome in women with reduced fetal movement was considered acceptable, in the absence of other tests, to progress to a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Research priorities and potential methodologies to inform care in subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth: a web-based survey of healthcare professionals, researchers and advocates.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities and explore potential methodologies to inform care in subsequent pregnancies following a stillbirth. DESIGN: Web-based survey by invitation. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary panel of 79 individuals involved in stillbirth research, clinical practice and/or advocacy from the international stillbirth research community (response rate=64%). OUTCOME MEASURES: Importance of 16 candidate research topics and perceived utility and appropriateness of randomised controlled trial (RCT) methodology for the evaluation of four pertinent interventions: (1) medical therapies for placental dysfunction (eg, antiplatelet agents); (2) additional antepartum fetal surveillance (eg, ultrasound scans); (3) early planned birth from 37 weeks' gestation and (4) different forms of psychosocial support for parents and families. RESULTS: Candidate research topics that were rated as 'important and urgent' by the greatest proportion of participants were: medical therapies for placental dysfunction (81%); additional antepartum fetal surveillance (80%); the development of a core outcomes dataset for stillbirth research (79%); targeted antenatal interventions for women who have risk factors (79%) and calculating the risk of recurrent stillbirth according to specific causes of index stillbirth (79%). Whether RCT methodologies were considered appropriate for the four selected interventions varied depending on the criterion being assessed. For example, while 72% of respondents felt that RCTs were 'the best way' to evaluate medical therapies for placental dysfunction, fewer respondents (63%) deemed RCTs ethical in this context, and approximately only half (52%) felt that such RCTs were feasible. There was considerably less support for RCT methodology for the evaluation of different forms of psychosocial support, which was reinforced by free-text comments. CONCLUSIONS: Five priority research topics to inform care in pregnancies after stillbirth were identified. There was support for RCTs in this area, but the panel remained divided on the ethics and feasibility of such trials. Engagement with parents and families is a critical next step.

Biochemical tests of placental function versus ultrasound assessment of fetal size for stillbirth and small-for-gestational-age infants.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth affects 2.6 million pregnancies worldwide each year. Whilst the majority of cases occur in low- and middle-income countries, stillbirth remains an important clinical issue for high-income countries (HICs) - with both the UK and the USA reporting rates above the mean for HICs. In HICs, the most frequently reported association with stillbirth is placental dysfunction. Placental dysfunction may be evident clinically as fetal growth restriction (FGR) and small-for-dates infants. It can be caused by placental abruption or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and many other disorders and factorsPlacental abnormalities are noted in 11% to 65% of stillbirths. Identification of FGA is difficult in utero. Small-for-gestational age (SGA), as assessed after birth, is the most commonly used surrogate measure for this outcome. The degree of SGA is associated with the likelihood of FGR; 30% of infants with a birthweight < 10th centile are thought to be FGR, while 70% of infants with a birthweight < 3rd centile are thought to be FGR. Critically, SGA is the most significant antenatal risk factor for a stillborn infant. Correct identification of SGA infants is associated with a reduction in the perinatal mortality rate. However, currently used tests, such as measurement of symphysis-fundal height, have a low reported sensitivity and specificity for the identification of SGA infants. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound assessment of fetal growth by estimated fetal weight (EFW) and placental biomarkers alone and in any combination used after 24 weeks of pregnancy in the identification of placental dysfunction as evidenced by either stillbirth, or birth of a SGA infant. Secondary objectives were to investigate the effect of clinical and methodological factors on test performance. SEARCH METHODS: We developed full search strategies with no language or date restrictions. The following sources were searched: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane (Wiley) CENTRAL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), CINAHL (EBSCO) with search strategies adapted for each database as required; ISRCTN Registry, UK Clinical Trials Gateway, WHO International Clinical Trials Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies; specialist abstract and conference proceeding resources (British Library's ZETOC and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index). Search last conducted in Ocober 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of pregnant women of any age with a gestation of at least 24 weeks if relevant outcomes of pregnancy (live birth/stillbirth; SGA infant) were assessed. Studies were included irrespective of whether pregnant women were deemed to be low or high risk for complications or were of mixed populations (low and high risk). Pregnancies complicated by fetal abnormalities and multi-fetal pregnancies were excluded as they have a higher risk of stillbirth from non-placental causes. With regard to biochemical tests, we included assays performed using any technique and at any threshold used to determine test positivity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted the numbers of true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative test results from each study. We assessed risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analyses were performed using the hierarchical summary ROC model to estimate and compare test accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 91 studies that evaluated seven tests - blood tests for human placental lactogen (hPL), oestriol, placental growth factor (PlGF) and uric acid, ultrasound EFW and placental grading and urinary oestriol - in a total of 175,426 pregnant women, in which 15,471 pregnancies ended in the birth of a small baby and 740 pregnancies which ended in stillbirth. The quality of included studies was variable with most domains at low risk of bias although 59% of studies were deemed to be of unclear risk of bias for the reference standard domain. Fifty-three per cent of studies were of high concern for applicability due to inclusion of only high- or low-risk women.Using all available data for SGA (86 studies; 159,490 pregnancies involving 15,471 SGA infants), there was evidence of a difference in accuracy (P < 0.0001) between the seven tests for detecting pregnancies that are SGA at birth. Ultrasound EFW was the most accurate test for detecting SGA at birth with a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 21.3 (95% CI 13.1 to 34.6); hPL was the most accurate biochemical test with a DOR of 4.78 (95% CI 3.21 to 7.13). In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 pregnant women, at the median specificity of 0.88 and median prevalence of 19%, EFW, hPL, oestriol, urinary oestriol, uric acid, PlGF and placental grading will miss 50 (95% CI 32 to 68), 116 (97 to 133), 124 (108 to 137), 127 (95 to 152), 139 (118 to 154), 144 (118 to 161), and 144 (122 to 161) SGA infants, respectively. For the detection of pregnancies ending in stillbirth (21 studies; 100,687 pregnancies involving 740 stillbirths), in an indirect comparison of the four biochemical tests, PlGF was the most accurate test with a DOR of 49.2 (95% CI 12.7 to 191). In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 pregnant women, at the median specificity of 0.78 and median prevalence of 1.7%, PlGF, hPL, urinary oestriol and uric acid will miss 2 (95% CI 0 to 4), 4 (2 to 8), 6 (6 to 7) and 8 (3 to 13) stillbirths, respectively. No studies assessed the accuracy of ultrasound EFW for detection of pregnancy ending in stillbirth. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Biochemical markers of placental dysfunction used alone have insufficient accuracy to identify pregnancies ending in SGA or stillbirth. Studies combining U and placental biomarkers are needed to determine whether this approach improves diagnostic accuracy over the use of ultrasound estimation of fetal size or biochemical markers of placental dysfunction used alone. Many of the studies included in this review were carried out between 1974 and 2016. Studies of placental substances were mostly carried out before 1991 and after 2013; earlier studies may not reflect developments in test technology.

The kynurenine pathway; A new target for treating maternal features of preeclampsia?

In preeclampsia, vasospasm, oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction, and immune dysregulation are key mediators of maternal disease. A new time-of-disease treatment is needed with the potential to treat these areas of pathophysiology. A review of the literature has indicated that metabolites of the kynurenine pathway have the potential to; (i) induce vasorelaxation of resistance arteries and reduce blood pressure; (ii) exert antioxidant effects and reduce the effects of poly-ADP ribose polymerase activation (iii) prevent endothelial dysfunction and promote endothelial nitric oxide production; (iv) cause T cell differentiation into tolerogenic regulatory T cells and induce apoptosis of pro-inflammatory Th1 cells. This has led to the hypothesis that increasing Kynurenine pathway activity may offer a new treatment strategy for preeclampsia.

Care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth for improving outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth affects at least 2.6 million families worldwide every year and has enduring consequences for parents and health services. Parents entering a subsequent pregnancy following stillbirth face a risk of stillbirth recurrence, alongside increased risks of other adverse pregnancy outcomes and psychosocial challenges. These parents may benefit from a range of interventions to optimise their short- and longer-term medical health and psychosocial well-being. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different interventions or models of care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and family health outcomes, and health service utilisation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 June 2018), along with ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 June 2018). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs). Trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion, but we found no such reports. We included trials published as abstract only, provided sufficient information was available to allow assessment of trial eligibility and risk of bias. We excluded cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments. We extracted data from published reports, or sourced data directly from trialists. We checked the data for accuracy and resolved discrepancies by discussion or correspondence with trialists, or both. We conducted an assessment of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs and one qRCT, and judged them to be at low to moderate risk of bias. Trials were carried out between the years 1964 and 2015 and took place predominantly in high-income countries in Europe. All trials assessed medical interventions; no trials assessed psychosocial interventions or incorporated psychosocial aspects of care. Trials evaluated the use of antiplatelet agents (low-dose aspirin (LDA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or both), third-party leukocyte immunisation, intravenous immunoglobulin, and progestogen. Trial participants were women who were either pregnant or attempting to conceive following a pregnancy loss, fetal death, or adverse outcome in a previous pregnancy.We extracted data for 222 women who had experienced a previous stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or more from the broader trial data sets, and included them in this review. Our GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due largely to serious imprecision in effect estimates as a result of small sample sizes, low numbers of events, and wide confidence intervals (CIs) crossing the line of no effect. Most of the analyses in this review were not sufficiently powered to detect differences in the outcomes assessed. The results presented are therefore largely uncertain.Main comparisonsLMWH versus no treatment/standard care (three RCTs, 123 women, depending on the outcome)It was uncertain whether LMWH reduced the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.32; 2 trials; 77 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse maternal psychological effects (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 trial; 40 participants; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (RR 1.01, 0.58 to 1.74; 3 trials; 114 participants; low-quality evidence). No neonatal deaths were reported in the trials assessed and no data were available for maternal-infant attachment. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups among the remaining secondary outcomes.LDA versus placebo (one RCT, 24 women)It was uncertain whether LDA reduced the risk of stillbirth (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.01), neonatal death (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.38), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.34), perinatal mortality, or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (both of the latter RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.06; all very low-quality evidence). No data were available for adverse maternal psychological effects or maternal-infant attachment. LDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight (mean difference (MD) 790.00 g, 95% CI 295.03 to 1284.97 g) when compared to placebo, but this result was very unstable due to the extremely small sample size. Whether LDA has any effect on the remaining secondary outcomes was also uncertain.Other comparisonsLDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight when compared to LDA + LMWH (MD -650.00 g, 95% CI -1210.33 to -89.67 g; 1 trial; 29 infants), as did third-party leukocyte immunisation when compared to placebo (MD 1195.00 g, 95% CI 273.35 to 2116.65 g; 1 trial, 4 infants), but these results were again very unstable due to extremely small sample sizes. The effects of the interventions on the remaining outcomes were also uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence in this review to inform clinical practice about the effectiveness of interventions to improve care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following a stillbirth. There is a clear and urgent need for well-designed trials addressing this research question. The evaluation of medical interventions such as LDA, in the specific context of stillbirth prevention (and recurrent stillbirth prevention), is warranted. However, appropriate methodologies to evaluate such therapies need to be determined, particularly where clinical equipoise may be lacking. Careful trial design and multicentre collaboration is necessary to carry out trials that would be sufficiently large to detect differences in statistically rare outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death. The evaluation of psychosocial interventions addressing maternal-fetal attachment and parental anxiety and depression is also an urgent priority. In a randomised-trial context, such trials may allocate parents to different forms of support, to determine which have the greatest benefit with the least financial cost. Importantly, consistency in nomenclature and in data collection across all future trials (randomised and non-randomised) may be facilitated by a core outcomes data set for stillbirth research. All future trials should assess short- and longer-term psychosocial outcomes for parents and families, alongside economic costs of interventions.