Data integrity of 14 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A review of the literature on iron treatments for iron-deficient anaemia in pregnancy indicated duplication of baseline and outcome tables in two separate randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that share only a single author. AIM: To assess the integrity of randomised clinical trials from Dr A.M. Darwish, Assiut University, Egypt. DESIGN: Assessment of Research Integrity. METHODS: We tabulated the characteristics of studies, compared baseline and outcome tables between articles and looked for implausible findings. We used the distribution of baseline p-values to assess whether the summary statistics of baseline characteristics were consistent with properly conducted randomisation. RESULTS: We identified 14 RCTs (1,405 participants) published between October 2004 and September 2019. Two pairs of studies showed considerable similarities in baseline characteristics, while another pair of studies was plagiarized. The analysis of baseline p-values indicated a low probability that all the studies featured randomised treatment allocation. CONCLUSION: Our analysis of the RCTs of Dr Darwish suggests possible integrity problems. We recommend a critical investigation of the studies that have not been retracted. Until that has been completed, these studies should not be used to inform clinical practice.

Maternal vaccination against COVID-19 and neonatal outcomes during Omicron: INTERCOVID-2022 study.

BACKGROUND: In early 2023, when Omicron was the variant of concern, we showed that vaccinating pregnant women decreased the risk for severe COVID-19-related complications and maternal morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the impact of COVID-19 during pregnancy on newborns and the effects of maternal COVID-19 vaccination on neonatal outcomes when Omicron was the variant of concern. STUDY DESIGN: INTERCOVID-2022 was a large, prospective, observational study, conducted in 40 hospitals across 18 countries, from November 27, 2021 (the day after the World Health Organization declared Omicron the variant of concern) to June 30, 2022, to assess the effect of COVID-19 in pregnancy on maternal and neonatal outcomes and to assess vaccine effectiveness. Women diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during pregnancy were compared with 2 nondiagnosed, unmatched women recruited concomitantly and consecutively during pregnancy or at delivery. Mother-newborn dyads were followed until hospital discharge. The primary outcomes were a neonatal positive test for COVID-19, severe neonatal morbidity index, severe perinatal morbidity and mortality index, preterm birth, neonatal death, referral to neonatal intensive care unit, and diseases during the neonatal period. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated with adjustment for maternal risk profile. RESULTS: We enrolled 4707 neonates born to 1577 (33.5%) mothers diagnosed with COVID-19 and 3130 (66.5%) nondiagnosed mothers. Among the diagnosed mothers, 642 (40.7%) were not vaccinated, 147 (9.3%) were partially vaccinated, 551 (34.9%) were completely vaccinated, and 237 (15.0%) also had a booster vaccine. Neonates of booster-vaccinated mothers had less than half (relative risk, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.91) the risk of being diagnosed with COVID-19 when compared with those of unvaccinated mothers; they also had the lowest rates of preterm birth, medically indicated preterm birth, respiratory distress syndrome, and number of days in the neonatal intensive care unit. Newborns of unvaccinated mothers had double the risk for neonatal death (relative risk, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-4.00) when compared with those of nondiagnosed mothers. Vaccination was not associated with any congenital malformations. Although all vaccines provided protection against neonatal test positivity, newborns of booster-vaccinated mothers had the highest vaccine effectiveness (64%; 95% confidence interval, 10%-86%). Vaccine effectiveness was not as high for messenger RNA vaccines only. Vaccine effectiveness against moderate or severe neonatal outcomes was much lower, namely 13% in the booster-vaccinated group (all vaccines) and 25% and 28% in the completely and booster-vaccinated groups, respectively (messenger RNA vaccines only). Vaccines were fairly effective in protecting neonates when given to pregnant women ≤100 days (14 weeks) before birth; thereafter, the risk increased and was much higher after 200 days (29 weeks). Finally, none of the neonatal practices studied, including skin-to-skin contact and direct breastfeeding, increased the risk for infecting newborns. CONCLUSION: When Omicron was the variant of concern, newborns of unvaccinated mothers had an increased risk for neonatal death. Neonates of vaccinated mothers had a decreased risk for preterm birth and adverse neonatal outcomes. Because the protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination decreases with time, to ensure that newborns are maximally protected against COVID-19, mothers should receive a vaccine or booster dose no more than 14 weeks before the expected date of delivery.

The carbon footprint of different modes of birth in the UK and the Netherlands: An exploratory study using life cycle assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the carbon footprint of caesarean and vaginal birth. DESIGN: Life cycle assessment (LCA). SETTING: Tertiary maternity units and home births in the UK and the Netherlands. POPULATION: Birthing women. METHODS: A cradle-to-grave LCA using openLCA software to model the carbon footprint of different modes of delivery in the UK and the Netherlands. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 'Carbon footprint' (in kgCO2 equivalents [kgCO2 e]). RESULTS: Excluding analgesia, the carbon footprint of a caesarean birth in the UK was 31.21 kgCO2 e, compared with 12.47 kgCO2 e for vaginal birth in hospital and 7.63 kgCO2 e at home. In the Netherlands the carbon footprint of a caesarean was higher (32.96 kgCO2 e), but lower for vaginal birth in hospital and home (10.74 and 6.27 kgCO2 e, respectively). Emissions associated with analgesia for vaginal birth ranged from 0.08 kgCO2 e (with opioid analgesia) to 237.33 kgCO2 e (nitrous oxide with oxygen). Differences in analgesia use resulted in a lower average carbon footprint for vaginal birth in the Netherlands than the UK (11.64 versus 193.26 kgCO2 e). CONCLUSION: The carbon footprint of a caesarean is higher than for a vaginal birth if analgesia is excluded, but this is very sensitive to the analgesia used; use of nitrous oxide with oxygen multiplies the carbon footprint of vaginal birth 25-fold. Alternative methods of pain relief or nitrous oxide destruction systems would lead to a substantial improvement in carbon footprint. Although clinical need and maternal choice are paramount, protocols should consider the environmental impact of different choices.

Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot.

OBJECTIVES: To propose a checklist that can be used to assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: A screening tool was developed using the four-stage approach proposed by Moher et al. This included defining the scope, reviewing the evidence base, suggesting a list of items from piloting, and holding a consensus meeting. The initial checklist was set-up by a core group who had been involved in the assessment of problematic RCTs for several years. We piloted this in a consensus panel of several stakeholders, including health professionals, reviewers, journal editors, policymakers, researchers, and evidence-synthesis specialists. Each member was asked to score three articles with the checklist and the results were then discussed in consensus meetings. OUTCOME: The Trustworthiness in RAndomised Clinical Trials (TRACT) checklist includes 19 items organised into seven domains that are applicable to every RCT: 1) Governance, 2) Author Group, 3) Plausibility of Intervention Usage, 4) Timeframe, 5) Drop-out Rates, 6) Baseline Characteristics, and 7) Outcomes. Each item can be answered as either no concerns, some concerns/no information, or major concerns. If a study is assessed and found to have a majority of items rated at a major concern level, then editors, reviewers or evidence synthesizers should consider a more thorough investigation, including assessment of original individual participant data. CONCLUSIONS: The TRACT checklist is the first checklist developed specifically to detect trustworthiness issues in RCTs. It might help editors, publishers and researchers to screen for such issues in submitted or published RCTs in a transparent and replicable manner.

Feasibility of a RCT of techniques for managing an impacted fetal head during emergency caesarean section: the MIDAS scoping study.

Background: Second-stage caesarean sections, of which there are around 34,000 per year in the UK, have greater maternal and perinatal morbidity than those in the first stage. The fetal head is often deeply impacted in the maternal pelvis, and extraction can be difficult. Numerous techniques are reported, but the superiority of one over another is contentious and there is no national guidance. Objective: To determine the feasibility of a randomised trial of different techniques for managing an impacted fetal head during emergency caesarean. Design: A scoping study with five work packages: (1) national surveys to determine current practice and acceptability of research in this area, and a qualitative study to determine acceptability to women who have experienced a second-stage caesarean; (2) a national prospective observational study to determine incidence and rate of complications; (3) a Delphi survey and consensus meeting on choice of techniques and outcomes for a trial; (4) the design of a trial; and (5) a national survey and qualitative study to determine acceptability of the proposed trial. Setting: Secondary care. Participants: Health-care professionals, pregnant women, women who have had a second-stage caesarean, and parents. Results: Most (244/279, 87%) health-care professionals believe that a trial in this area would help guide their practice, and 90% (252/279) would be willing to participate in such a trial. Thirty-eight per cent (98/259) of parents reported that they would take part. Women varied in which technique they thought was most acceptable. Our observational study found that impacted head is common (occurring in 16% of second-stage caesareans) and leads to both maternal (41%) and neonatal (3.5%) complications. It is most often treated by an assistant pushing the head up vaginally. We designed a randomised clinical trial comparing the fetal pillow with the vaginal push technique. The vast majority of health-care professionals, 83% of midwives and 88% of obstetricians, would be willing to participate in the trial proposed, and 37% of parents reported that they would take part. Our qualitative study found that most participants thought the trial would be feasible and acceptable. Limitations: Our survey is subject to the limitation that, although responses refer to contemporaneous real cases, they are self-reported by the surgeon and collected after the event. Willingness to participate in a hypothetical trial may not translate into recruitment to a real trial. Conclusions: We proposed a trial to compare a new device, the fetal pillow, with a long-established procedure, the vaginal push technique. Such a trial would be widely supported by health-care professionals. We recommend that it be powered to test an effect on important short term maternal and baby outcomes which would require 754 participants per group. Despite the well-known difference between intent and action, this would be feasible within the UK. Future work: We recommend a randomised controlled trial of two techniques for managing an impacted fetal head with an in-built internal pilot phase and alongside economic and qualitative substudies. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry 4942. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Text: One-quarter of UK pregnant women have a caesarean section. Most of these procedures are straightforward, but in a small number of cases unexpected complications can make the birth difficult. One complication, an impacted fetal head, may happen when caesarean sections are done in the second 'pushing' stage of labour. If the baby's head is low and wedged in the woman's pelvis, lifting it can be difficult, which can result in damage to the mother's womb and vagina, and to her baby. Occasionally, babies die. There are different techniques doctors and midwives can use to make these births easier, but there is uncertainty around which is best. To plan a trial to test these techniques, we needed to know how often impacted head happens, what techniques are used to manage it and whether or not research is acceptable to parents and health-care professionals. We surveyed doctors and midwives to find out which techniques they use and what training they need. We surveyed parents and pregnant women and interviewed women who had experienced a second-stage caesarean. We collected information from UK hospitals to find out how common this is and the impact on women and babies. We found out the following. List: • Around 7% of caesareans take place in second stage, and impacted fetal head occurs in 16% of these births. List: • One-third of women would consent to take part in a trial, if the complication happened to them. List: • Nearly all midwives and doctors thought that this research was important and would be willing to take part. Text: Using all of the information we collected, we designed a clinical trial. We wanted to compare two techniques for managing an impacted fetal head. The first is the vaginal push technique, where the doctor or midwife puts their hand into the mother's vagina to push her baby's head up, and the second is the fetal pillow, a device inserted into the mother's vagina before the operation starts to dislodge the baby's head upwards.

Induction of labour at or near term for suspected fetal macrosomia.

BACKGROUND: Women with a suspected large-for-dates fetus or a fetus with suspected macrosomia (birthweight greater than 4000 g) are at risk of operative birth or caesarean section. The baby is also at increased risk of shoulder dystocia and trauma, in particular fractures and brachial plexus injury. Induction of labour may reduce these risks by decreasing the birthweight, but may also lead to longer labours and an increased risk of caesarean section. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of a policy of labour induction at or shortly before term (37 to 40 weeks) for suspected fetal macrosomia on the way of giving birth and maternal or perinatal morbidity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), contacted trial authors and searched reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We contacted study authors for additional information. For key outcomes the quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials, involving 1190 women. It was not possible to blind women and staff to the intervention, but for other 'Risk of bias' domains these studies were assessed as being at low or unclear risk of bias. Compared to expectant management, there was no clear effect of induction of labour for suspected macrosomia on the risk of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.09; 1190 women; four trials, moderate-quality evidence) or instrumental delivery (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.13; 1190 women; four trials, low-quality evidence). Shoulder dystocia (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.98; 1190 women; four trials, moderate-quality evidence), and fracture (any) (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.79; 1190 women; four studies, high-quality evidence) were reduced in the induction of labour group. There were no clear differences between groups for brachial plexus injury (two events were reported in the control group in one trial, low-quality evidence). There was no strong evidence of any difference between groups for measures of neonatal asphyxia; low five-minute infant Apgar scores (less than seven) or low arterial cord blood pH (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.02; 858 infants; two trials, low-quality evidence; and, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.22; 818 infants; one trial, moderate-quality evidence, respectively). Mean birthweight was lower in the induction group, but there was considerable heterogeneity between studies for this outcome (mean difference (MD) -178.03 g, 95% CI -315.26 to -40.81; 1190 infants; four studies; I2 = 89%).  For outcomes assessed using GRADE, we based our downgrading decisions on high risk of bias from lack of blinding and imprecision of effect estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia has not been shown to alter the risk of brachial plexus injury, but the power of the included studies to show a difference for such a rare event is limited. Also antenatal estimates of fetal weight are often inaccurate so many women may be worried unnecessarily, and many inductions may not be needed. Nevertheless, induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia results in a lower mean birthweight, and fewer birth fractures and shoulder dystocia. The observation of increased use of phototherapy in the largest trial, should also be kept in mind. Findings from trials included in the review suggest that to prevent one fracture it would be necessary to induce labour in 60 women. Since induction of labour does not appear to alter the rate of caesarean delivery or instrumental delivery, it is likely to be popular with many women. In settings where obstetricians can be reasonably confident about their scan assessment of fetal weight, the advantages and disadvantages of induction at or near term for fetuses suspected of being macrosomic should be discussed with parents. Although some parents and doctors may feel the evidence already justifies induction, others may justifiably disagree. Further trials of induction shortly before term for suspected fetal macrosomia are needed. Such trials should concentrate on refining the optimum gestation of induction, and improving the accuracy of the diagnosis of macrosomia.

Pregnancy outcomes and vaccine effectiveness during the period of omicron as the variant of concern, INTERCOVID-2022: a multinational, observational study.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, we showed an increased risk associated with COVID-19 in pregnancy. Since then, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has undergone genetic mutations. We aimed to examine the effects on maternal and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 during pregnancy, and evaluate vaccine effectiveness, when omicron (B.1.1.529) was the variant of concern. METHODS: INTERCOVID-2022 is a large, prospective, observational study, involving 41 hospitals across 18 countries. Each woman with real-time PCR or rapid test, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in pregnancy was compared with two unmatched women without a COVID-19 diagnosis who were recruited concomitantly and consecutively in pregnancy or at delivery. Mother and neonate dyads were followed until hospital discharge. Primary outcomes were maternal morbidity and mortality index (MMMI), severe neonatal morbidity index (SNMI), and severe perinatal morbidity and mortality index (SPMMI). Vaccine effectiveness was estimated, adjusted by maternal risk profile. FINDINGS: We enrolled 4618 pregnant women from Nov 27, 2021 (the day after WHO declared omicron a variant of concern), to June 30, 2022: 1545 (33%) women had a COVID-19 diagnosis (median gestation 36·7 weeks [IQR 29·0-38·9]) and 3073 (67%) women, with similar demographic characteristics, did not have a COVID-19 diagnosis. Overall, women with a diagnosis had an increased risk for MMMI (relative risk [RR] 1·16 [95% CI 1·03-1·31]) and SPMMI (RR 1·21 [95% CI 1·00-1·46]). Women with a diagnosis, compared with those without a diagnosis, also had increased risks of SNMI (RR 1·23 [95% CI 0·88-1·71]), although the lower bounds of the 95% CI crossed unity. Unvaccinated women with a COVID-19 diagnosis had a greater risk of MMMI (RR 1·36 [95% CI 1·12-1·65]). Severe COVID-19 symptoms in the total sample increased the risk of severe maternal complications (RR 2·51 [95% CI 1·84-3·43]), perinatal complications (RR 1·84 [95% CI 1·02-3·34]), and referral, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or death (RR 11·83 [95% CI 6·67-20·97]). Severe COVID-19 symptoms in unvaccinated women increased the risk of MMMI (RR 2·88 [95% CI 2·02-4·12]) and referral, ICU admission, or death (RR 20·82 [95% CI 10·44-41·54]). 2886 (63%) of 4618 total participants had at least a single dose of any vaccine, and 2476 (54%) of 4618 had either complete or booster doses. Vaccine effectiveness (all vaccines combined) for severe complications of COVID-19 for all women with a complete regimen was 48% (95% CI 22-65) and 76% (47-89) after a booster dose. For women with a COVID-19 diagnosis, vaccine effectiveness of all vaccines combined for women with a complete regimen was 74% (95% CI 48-87) and 91% (65-98) after a booster dose. INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 in pregnancy, during the first 6 months of omicron as the variant of concern, was associated with increased risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, especially among symptomatic and unvaccinated women. Women with complete or boosted vaccine doses had reduced risk for severe symptoms, complications, and death. Vaccination coverage among pregnant women remains a priority. FUNDING: None.

Concerns about Data Integrity of 22 Randomized Controlled Trials in Women's Health.

OBJECTIVE: During a review on postpartum hemorrhage, we identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of one author conducted at the same time and place for the same condition, with large differences in baseline characteristics. We assessed the data integrity of the RCTs of this author. STUDY DESIGN: We undertook a focused analysis of the data integrity of all RCTs published by Dr. Ahmed M. Maged. We examined the studies for clinical logic and made pairwise comparisons of baseline characteristics and outcomes between trials. We used mathematical methods to assess whether the distribution of baseline characteristics was compatible with chance. RESULTS: Between March 2015 and December 2019, Dr. Maged published 22 RCTs (n = 3,722). The median number of participants randomized per center per month was 32 (range = 1-89). Fifteen studies were either not or retrospectively registered, with one study registered 1 year after publication. One study was submitted for publication prior to the completion of the described study period. There were many unusual findings in the studies, including biologically implausible occurrences such as the absence of an association between gestational age and birthweight in seven studies and very different body mass index between three trials, which ran at the same time in the same hospital on the same topic as well as unlikely occurrences such as limited participant drop outs. One paper contained considerable text duplication and identical data to that in a paper published by a different author group from a different hospital, with both papers submitted at the same time. Mathematical analysis of the baseline characteristics of all 22 trials indicated that at least some of the reported baseline characteristics were unlikely to be the result of proper randomization. CONCLUSION: Our analyses of the 22 RCTs of Dr. Maged suggest potential data integrity issues in at least some of them. We suggest that journals investigate according to the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines. The procedures demonstrated in this paper may help to assess data integrity in future attempts to verify the authenticity of published RCTs. KEY POINTS: · We identified a number of findings biologically implausible in RCTs by Maged.. · Monte Carlo simulation found pooled data of Maged RCTs were unlikely result of proper randomization.. · Textual overlap and almost identical data were found between a Maged paper and another paper.. · The methods we described may be useful for future efforts in validating scientific data integrity..

Recruitment of pregnant women to randomised trials of COVID 19 treatments, and pharmaceutical treatments received outside such trials: A research article.

OBJECTIVES: To document how many pregnant women with COVID-19 reported in the literature had participated in randomised trials, what treatments they received outside such trials and compare the latter with evidence-based treatment recommendations. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of observational studies. METHODS: Two clinical trial registries were searched to identify COVID-19 trials open to pregnant women. Studies were then extracted from a regularly updated list of scientific case reports and case series of confirmed or suspected maternal COVID-19 in pregnancy to identify the number of women enrolled into a trial and the pharmaceutical treatments they received outside such trials. RESULTS: 156 studies (case reports, case series and registries) reporting 43,185 pregnant women with COVID-19, after de-duplication. Of these 2,671 (6.2%) were potentially eligible for a randomised trial but only seven women (0.26%) were reported to have enrolled. For 2,839 women the papers included information on treatment received, 1515/2829 (54%) women had received ≥ 1 treatment and in total a COVID-19 pharmaceutical treatment was administered 1,296 times outside of a trial. In 566 (44%) cases the treatments administered to the pregnant women were not recommended by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) at the time of administration. Of 179 case reports of women with COVID 19 in pregnancy, 109/179 women received ≥ 1 COVID-19 pharmaceutical treatment and in total COVID-19 experimental pharmaceutical treatments were administered 274 times. CONCLUSION: During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant women excluded from randomised trials did not avoid unproven or ineffective treatments.

Perinatal and 2-year neurodevelopmental outcome in late preterm fetal compromise: the TRUFFLE 2 randomised trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Following the detection of fetal growth restriction, there is no consensus about the criteria that should trigger delivery in the late preterm period. The consequences of inappropriate early or late delivery are potentially important yet practice varies widely around the world, with abnormal findings from fetal heart rate monitoring invariably leading to delivery. Indices derived from fetal cerebral Doppler examination may guide such decisions although there are few studies in this area. We propose a randomised, controlled trial to establish the optimum method of timing delivery between 32 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days of gestation. We hypothesise that delivery on evidence of cerebral blood flow redistribution reduces a composite of perinatal poor outcome, death and short-term hypoxia-related morbidity, with no worsening of neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Women with non-anomalous singleton pregnancies 32+0 to 36+6 weeks of gestation in whom the estimated fetal weight or abdominal circumference is <10th percentile or has decreased by 50 percentiles since 18-32 weeks will be included for observational data collection. Participants will be randomised if cerebral blood flow redistribution is identified, based on umbilical to middle cerebral artery pulsatility index ratio values. Computerised cardiotocography (cCTG) must show normal fetal heart rate short term variation (≥4.5 msec) and absence of decelerations at randomisation. Randomisation will be 1:1 to immediate delivery or delayed delivery (based on cCTG abnormalities or other worsening fetal condition). The primary outcome is poor condition at birth and/or fetal or neonatal death and/or major neonatal morbidity, the secondary non-inferiority outcome is 2-year infant general health and neurodevelopmental outcome based on the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised questionnaire. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Study Coordination Centre has obtained approval from London-Riverside Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Regulatory Authority (HRA). Publication will be in line with NIHR Open Access policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Main sponsor: Imperial College London, Reference: 19QC5491. Funders: NIHR HTA, Reference: 127 976. Study coordination centre: Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS with Centre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical & Life Sciences, Cardiff University. IRAS Project ID: 266 400. REC reference: 20/LO/0031. ISRCTN registry: 76 016 200.

Impacted fetal head during second stage Caesarean birth: A prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of, and complication rates from, impacted fetal head at full dilatation Caesarean birth in the UK, and record what techniques were used. DESIGN: Prospective observational study using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS). SETTING: 159 (82%) of the 194 UK hospitals with obstetric units. POPULATION: All women who underwent second stage Caesarean birth in the UK between 1st March and 31st August 2019. Further information was collected on cases where a dis-impaction technique was used, or the operating surgeon experienced 'difficulty' in delivering the head. METHODS: Prospective observational study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Technique(s) used, maternal and neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: 3,518 s stage Caesarean births reported. The surgeon used a dis-impaction technique or reported 'difficulty' in 564 (16%) of these. The most common dis-impaction techniques used were manual elevation of the head by an assistant through the vagina (n = 235) and a fetal "pillow" (n = 176). Thirteen babies (2%) died or sustained severe injury. Four babies died (two directly attributable to the impacted fetal head). CONCLUSIONS: Difficulty with delivery of the fetal head and the use of dis-impaction techniques during second stage Caesarean sections are common but there is no consensus as to the best method to achieve delivery and in what order.

COVID-19 and pregnancy: A comparison of case reports, case series and registry studies.

BACKGROUND: Selection, outcome and publication biases are well described in case reports and case series but may be less of a problem early in the appearance of a new disease when all cases might appear to be worth publishing. OBJECTIVE: To use a prospectively collected database of primary sources to compare the reporting of COVID-19 in pregnancy in case reports, case series and in registries over the first 8 months of the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: MEDLINE, Embase and Maternity and Infant Care databases were searched from 22 March to 5 November 2020, to create a curated list of primary sources. Duplicate reports were excluded. Case reports, case series and registry studies of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19, where neonatal outcomes were reported, were selected and data extracted on neonatal infection status, neonatal death, neonatal intensive care unit admission, preterm birth, stillbirth, maternal critical care unit admission and maternal death. RESULTS: 149 studies comprising 41,658 mothers and 8,854 neonates were included. All complications were more common in case reports, and in retrospective series compared with presumably prospective registry studies. Extensive overlap is likely in registry studies, with cases from seven countries reported by multiple registries. The UK Obstetric Surveillance System was the only registry to explicitly report identification and removal of duplicate cases, although five other registries reported collection of patient identifiable data which would facilitate identification of duplicates. CONCLUSIONS: Since it is likely that registries provide the least biased estimates, the higher rates seen in the other two study designs are probably due to selection or publication bias. However even some registry studies include self- or doctor-reported cases, so might be biased, and we could not completely exclude overlap of cases in some registries.

Routine ultrasound for fetal assessment before 24 weeks' gestation.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound examination of pregnancy before 24 weeks gestation may lead to more accurate dating and earlier diagnosis of pathology, but may also give false reassurance. It can be used to monitor development or diagnose conditions of an unborn baby. This review compares the effect of routine or universal, ultrasound examination, performed before 24 completed weeks' gestation, with selective or no ultrasound examination.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of routine pregnancy ultrasound before 24 weeks as part of a screening programme, compared to selective ultrasound or no ultrasound, on the early diagnosis of abnormal pregnancy location, termination for fetal congenital abnormality, multiple pregnancy, maternal outcomes and later fetal compromise. To assess the effect of first trimester (before 14 weeks) and second trimester (14 to 24 weeks) ultrasound, separately. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 11 August 2020. We also examined the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and RCTs published in abstract form. We included all trials with pregnant women who had routine or revealed ultrasound versus selective ultrasound, no ultrasound, or concealed ultrasound, before 24 weeks' gestation. All eligible studies were screened for scientific integrity and trustworthiness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias, extracted data and checked extracted data for accuracy. Two review authors independently used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome MAIN RESULTS: Our review included data from 13 RCTs including 85,265 women. The review included four comparisons. Four trials were assessed to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment and two as high risk. The nature of the intervention made it impossible to blind women and staff providing care to treatment allocation.  Sample attrition was low in the majority of trials and outcome data were available for most women. Many trials were conducted before it was customary for trials to be registered and protocols published. First trimester routine versus selective ultrasound: four studies, 1791 women, from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). First trimester scans probably reduce short-term maternal anxiety about pregnancy (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 0.99; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not have information on whether the reduction was sustained.  The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of first trimester scans on perinatal loss (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.73; 648 participants; one study; low-certainty evidence) or induction of labour for post-maturity (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.37; 1474 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). The effect of routine first trimester ultrasound on birth before 34 weeks or termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality was not reported. Second trimester routine versus selective ultrasound: seven studies, 36,053 women, from Finland, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the US. Second trimester scans probably make little difference to perinatal loss (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.20; 17,918 participants, three studies; moderate-certainty evidence) or intrauterine fetal death (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.42; 29,584 participants, three studies; low-certainty evidence). Second trimester scans may reduce induction of labour for post-maturity (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73; 24,174 participants, six studies; low-certainty evidence), presumably by more accurate dating. Routine second trimester ultrasound may improve detection of multiple pregnancy (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.16; 274 participants, five studies; low-certainty evidence). Routine second trimester ultrasound may increase detection of major fetal abnormality before 24 weeks (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.67 to 7.12; 387 participants, two studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases the number of women terminating pregnancy for major anomaly (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.93; 26,893 participants, four studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Long-term follow-up of children exposed to scans before birth did not indicate harm to children's physical or intellectual development (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.34; 603 participants, one study; low-certainty evidence). The effect of routine second trimester ultrasound on birth before 34 weeks or maternal anxiety was not reported. Standard care plus two ultrasounds and referral for complications versus standard care: one cluster-RCT, 47,431 women, from Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Kenya, Pakistan and Zambia. This trial included a co-intervention, training of healthcare workers and referral for complications and was, therefore, assessed separately. Standard pregnancy care plus two scans, and training and referral for complications, versus standard care probably makes little difference to whether women with complications give birth in a risk appropriate setting with facilities for caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.19; 11,680 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  The intervention also probably makes little to no difference to low birthweight (< 2500 g) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.13; 47,312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about whether the community intervention (including ultrasound) makes any difference to maternal mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.55; 46,768 participants; low-certainty evidence). Revealed ultrasound results (communicated to both patient and doctor) versus concealed ultrasound results (blinded to both patient and doctor at any time before 24 weeks): one study, 1095 women, from the UK. The evidence was very uncertain for all results relating to revealed versus concealed ultrasound scan (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Early scans probably reduce short term maternal anxiety.  Later scans may reduce labour induction for post-maturity. They may improve detection of major fetal abnormalities and increase the number of women who choose termination of pregnancy for this reason. They may also reduce the number of undetected twin pregnancies. All these findings accord with observational data.  Neither type of scan appears to alter other important maternal or fetal outcomes, but our review may underestimate the effect in modern practice because trials were mostly  from relatively early in the development of the technology, and many control participants also had scans. The trials were also underpowered to show an effect on other important maternal or fetal outcomes.

An investigation of seven other publications by the first author of a retracted paper due to doubts about data integrity.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) authored by Dr. Ismail was retracted due to concerns about data integrity. Since there are no policies in place to investigate other publications of authors of retracted studies, we investigated Dr. Ismail's other trials. METHODS: We searched for RCTs authored by Dr. Ismail. We made pairwise comparisons of values in baseline and outcome tables between trials. We assessed whether the distributions of baseline characteristics were compatible with properly conducted randomization, using Monte Carlo simulations and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. We read the publications carefully for unusual features. RESULTS: Dr. Ismail was author in eight published and one unpublished trial. In three of his first author studies we found multiple identical values in the baseline and/or outcome tables from different trials. At least some of the trials were unlikely to have followed a proper randomization process. There were a number of other unusual features in the papers we reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: It is probable that other trials published by Dr. Ismail contain questionable data. We call for a thorough investigation of the original trial data and related official documents. Our exercise suggests that the practice to assess research integrity should include all publications of authors with retracted fabricated articles.

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.

Evaluating the influence of progesterone concentration and time of exposure on in vitro endometrial decidualisation.

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of progesterone (concentration and time of exposure) on endometrial decidualisation using an in vitro model cell line: Human Endometrial Stromal Cells (HESCs). HESCs exposed to progesterone (1 and 10 µM) had higher percentages of decidualised cells and higher expression of the decidual marker (Insulin Like Growth Factor Binding Protein 1 (IGFBP1)) compared with those exposed to (0.1 µM). Among those HESCs cultured with 1 µM progesterone for 11 days, the highest rate of morphological differentiation (40-50%) occurred between days 7-9 and IGFBP1 peaked on day 7. The cell-cycle pathway was significantly down-regulated in HESCs exposed to at least 1 µM progesterone regardless of the incubation period. We conclude that exposure to high progesterone concentration for 7-9 days is essential to maximise the process of decidualisation.

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.

Haemostatic and thrombo-embolic complications in pregnant women with COVID-19: a systematic review and critical analysis.

BACKGROUND: As pregnancy is a physiological prothrombotic state, pregnant women may be at increased risk of developing coagulopathic and/or thromboembolic complications associated with COVID-19. METHODS: Two biomedical databases were searched between September 2019 and June 2020 for case reports and series of pregnant women with a diagnosis of COVID-19 based either on a positive swab or high clinical suspicion where no swab had been performed. Additional registry cases known to the authors were included. Steps were taken to minimise duplicate patients. Information on coagulopathy based on abnormal coagulation test results or clinical evidence of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), and on arterial or venous thrombosis, were extracted using a standard form. If available, detailed laboratory results and information on maternal outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: One thousand sixty-three women met the inclusion criteria, of which three (0.28, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.6) had arterial and/or venous thrombosis, seven (0.66, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.1) had DIC, and a further three (0.28, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.6) had coagulopathy without meeting the definition of DIC. Five hundred and thirty-seven women (56%) had been reported as having given birth and 426 (40%) as having an ongoing pregnancy. There were 17 (1.6, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.3) maternal deaths in which DIC was reported as a factor in two. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests that coagulopathy and thromboembolism are both increased in pregnancies affected by COVID-19. Detection of the former may be useful in the identification of women at risk of deterioration.