Modelling and comparing the use of IVF and ICSI in Australia.

PURPOSE: This study estimates the need of IVF/ICSI in Australia as compared to its actual uptake. METHODS: We created a model estimating for the annual demand for IVF/ICSI in a hypothetical infertile population, using demographic data from medical literature and Australian government databases. For each category of infertility (tubal, severe male, endometriosis, anovulation and unexplained), our estimated need for IVF/ICSI was compared to the actual IVF/ICSI uptake (ANZARD 2019). The model consisted of three categories depending on couples' cause of infertility, i.e. couples with absolute indications for IVF/ICSI (couples with severe male factor infertility and tubal obstruction); couples with anovulatory infertility (couples with ovulation disorders) and couples with ovulatory infertility (couples suffering from unexplained infertility and endometriosis). The model was applied to each of these categories to determine the number of couples that would require IVF/ICSI treatment after failing to conceive naturally or after following alternative treatment plans. The main outcomes of this study were the estimate of IVF/ICSI cycles and the difference between the estimate and the reported number of IVF/ICSI cycles (2019 ANZARD report). RESULTS: We estimated that approximately 35,300 couples required IVF/ICSI treatment in Australia in 2019, while in 2019 according to ANZARD, 46,000 couples underwent IVF/ICSI. A higher uptake of IVF/ICSI cycles than expected was specifically reported in couples with unexplained infertility, ovulation disorders and endometriosis, while for tubal and severe male infertility uptake seemed adequate. CONCLUSION: In Australia, there seems to be overservicing of IVF/ICSI, specifically for unexplained, ovulatory and endometriosis-related infertility.

Does metformin prolong pregnancy in preterm pre-eclampsia? A study protocol for a South African, hospital-based double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Preterm pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. The Pre-eclampsia Intervention 2 (PI 2) trial suggested that metformin sustained release (XR) may prolong gestation by a week in pregnant women undergoing expectant management (7.6 days, geometric mean ratio 1.39, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.95; p=0.057). These findings should be confirmed with a larger sample size, and we need to know if such a prolongation improves neonatal outcome. Here, we describe the protocol for such a follow-up trial. METHODS: The PI 3 trial is a phase III, intention-to-treat, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial to assess if metformin XR can prolong gestation and improve neonatal outcomes in women undergoing expectant management for preterm pre-eclampsia. We will recruit women who are between 26+0 and 31+6 weeks pregnant. Women will be randomised to receive either 3 g metformin XR or an identical placebo in divided daily doses. The primary outcome is prolongation of pregnancy. Secondary outcomes are neonatal birth weight and length of neonatal care admission (an indicator of neonatal health at birth). All other outcomes will be exploratory. We will record tolerability and adverse events. We plan a sample size of 500 participants to be powered for the primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PI 3 has ethical approval (Health Research Ethics Committee 2, Stellenbosch University, Protocol number M21/03/007, Project ID 21639, Federal Wide Assurance Number 00001372, Institutional Review Board Number IRB0005239), and is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR202104532026017) and the South African Medicine Control Council (20211211). Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PACTR202104532026017).

Characteristics of preterm births during COVID-19 mitigation measures.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, mitigation measures were associated with a reduction in preterm birth rates; while not clearly proven, this observation has sparked significant interest. AIM: To understand the cause of this reduction by exploring the characteristics of preterm birth cohorts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study where we compared women who delivered preterm in three Melbourne maternity hospitals and conceived between November 2019 and February 2020 (mitigation measures-exposed cohort) to women who delivered preterm and conceived between November 2018 and February 2019 (non-exposed cohort). We compared maternal characteristics, pregnancy complications, antenatal interventions, intrapartum care, and indications for delivery. RESULTS: In the exposed cohort, 252/3129 women delivered preterm (8.1%), vs 298/3154 (9.4%) in the non-exposed cohort (odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00, P = 0.051). The baseline characteristic of two cohorts were comparable. Rates of spontaneous preterm labour (sPTL) without preterm pre-labour rupture of membranes (PPROM) were lower in the exposed cohort (13.1% vs 24.2%, OR 0.47, P = 0.001) while PPROM occurred more often (48.0% vs 35.6%, OR 1.67, P = 0.003). With a non-statistically significant prolongation of pregnancy in the cohort exposed to mitigation measures for both sPTL without PPROM (35.4 vs 34.9 weeks, P = 0.703) and PPROM (35.6 vs 34.9 weeks, P = 0.184). The rate of spontaneous labour after PPROM was higher in the exposed cohort compared to the non-exposed cohort (40.1% vs 24.1%, OR 2.09, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The reduction in preterm delivery during mitigation measures may have been driven by a reduction in spontaneous labour without PPROM, which seemed to result in more PPROM later in pregnancy.

Livebirth rate after one frozen embryo transfer in ovulatory women starting with natural, modified natural, or artificial endometrial preparation in Viet Nam: an open-label randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of frozen embryo transfer (FET) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) has increased. However, the best endometrial preparation protocol for FET cycles is unclear. We compared natural and modified natural cycle strategies with an artificial cycle strategy for endometrial preparation before FET. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label study, we recruited ovulatory women aged 18-45 years at a hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, who were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to natural, modified natural, or artificial cycle endometrial preparation using a computer-generated random list and block randomisation. The trial was not masked due to the nature of the study interventions. In natural cycles, no oestrogen, progesterone, or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) was used. In modified natural cycles, hCG was used to trigger ovulation. In artificial cycles, oral oestradiol valerate (8 mg/day from day 2-4 of menstruation) and vaginal progesterone (800 mg/day starting when endometrial thickness was ≥7 mm) were used. Embryos were vitrified, and then one or two day-3 embryos or one day-5 embryo were warmed and transferred under ultrasound guidance. If the first FET cycle was cancelled, subsequent cycles were performed with artificial endometrial preparation. The primary endpoint was livebirth after one FET. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04804020. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2021, and March 14, 2023, 4779 women were screened and 1428 were randomly assigned (476 to each group). 99 first FET cycles were cancelled in each of the natural and modified cycle groups, versus none in the artificial cycle group. The livebirth rate after one FET was 174 (37%) of 476 in the natural cycle strategy group, 159 (33%) of 476 in the modified natural cycle strategy group, and 162 (34%) of 476 in the artificial cycle strategy group (relative risk 1·07 [95% CI 0·87-1·33] for natural vs artificial cycle strategy, and 0·98 [0·79-1·22] for modified natural vs artificial cycle strategy). Maternal and neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly between groups, as the power to detect small differences was low. INTERPRETATION: Although the livebirth rate was similar after natural, modified natural, and artificial cycle endometrial preparation strategies in ovulatory women undergoing FET IVF, no definitive conclusions can be made regarding the comparative safety of the three approaches. FUNDING: None.

Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity.

Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members toward one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but nonfinancial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analyzing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated toward COVID-19 elimination (Zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases toward advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided.

A historical narrative review through the field of tocolysis in threatened preterm birth.

Preterm birth presents a significant challenge in clinical obstetrics, requiring effective strategies to reduce associated mortality and morbidity risks. Tocolytic drugs, aimed at inhibiting uterine contractions, are a key aspect of addressing this challenge. Despite extensive research over many years, determining the most effective tocolytic agents remains a complex task, prompting better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of spontaneous preterm birth and recording meaningful outcome measures. This paper provides a comprehensive review of various obsolete and current tocolytic drug regimens that were instituted over the past century, examining both historical contexts and contemporary challenges in their development and adoption. The examination of historical debates and advancements highlights the complexity of introducing new therapies. While the search for effective tocolytics continues, questions arise regarding their actual benefits in obstetric care and the necessity for ongoing exploration. The presence of methodological limitations in current research emphasizes the importance of well-designed randomized controlled trials with robust endpoints and extended follow-up periods.In response to these complexities, the consideration of shifting towards prevention strategies aimed at addressing the root causes of preterm labor becomes more and more evident. This potential shift may offer a more effective approach than relying solely on tocolytics to delay labor initiation.Ultimately, effectively managing threatened preterm birth necessitates ongoing investigation, innovation, and a willingness to reassess strategies in pursuit of optimal outcomes for mothers, neonates, and long-term child health.

Does growth hormone supplementation of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection improve cumulative live birth rates in women with poor embryonic development in the previous cycle?

BACKGROUND: Growth hormone (GH) has been proposed as an adjunct in in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles, especially in women with poor ovarian response. However, it is unclear whether GH supplementation is effective in women with poor embryonic development in the previous IVF cycle. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of GH supplementation in IVF/ICSI cycles in women with poor embryonic development in the previous cycle. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study from a public fertility center in China, in which we performed propensity score-matching (PSM) for female age and AFC in a ratio of 1:1. We compared the cumulative live birth rate per started cycle, as well as a series of secondary outcomes. We included 3,043 women with poor embryonic development in the previous IVF/ICSI cycle, of which 1,326 had GH as adjuvant therapy and 1,717 had not. After PSM, there were 694 women in each group. RESULTS: After PSM, multivariate analyses showed the cumulative live birth rate to be significantly higher in the GH group than the control group [N = 694, 34.7% vs. N = 694, 27.5%, risk ratio (RR): 1.4 (95%CI: 1.1-1.8)]. Endometrial thickness, number of oocytes retrieved, number of embryos available, and number of good-quality embryos were significantly higher in the GH group compared to controls. Pregnancy outcomes in terms of birth weight, gestational age, fetal sex, preterm birth rate, and type of delivery were comparable. When we evaluated the impact of GH on different categories of female age, the observed benefit in the GH group did not appear to be significant. When we assessed the effect of GH in different AFC categories, the effect of GH was strongest in women with an AFC5-6 (32.2% versus 19.5%; RR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2-3.3). CONCLUSIONS: Women with poor embryonic quality in the previous IVF/ICSI cycles have higher rates of cumulative live birth with GH supplementation.

Concerns about data integrity across 263 papers by one author.

OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive investigation of published work by authors suspected of academic misconduct can reveal further concerns. We aimed to test for data integrity concerns in papers published by an author with eight retracted articles. STUDY DESIGN: We investigated the integrity of all papers reporting on prospective clinical studies by this author. We assessed the feasibility of study methods, baseline characteristics, and outcomes. We plotted the author's clinical research activity over time. We conducted pairwise comparisons of text, tables, and figures to identify duplicate publications, and checked for consistency between conference abstracts, interim analyses, trial registrations, and final papers. Where indicated, we recalculated p-values from the reported summary statistics. RESULTS: We identified 263 papers claiming to have enrolled 74,667 participants between January 2009 and July 2022, 190 (72%) of which reported on studies that recruited from the Assiut Women's Health Hospital in Assiut, Egypt. The number of active studies per month was greatest between 2016 and 2019, with 88 ongoing studies in May 2017. We found evidence of data integrity concerns in 130 (49%) papers, 43 (33%) of which contained concerns sufficient to suggest that they could not be based on data reliably collected from human participants. CONCLUSION: Our investigation finds evidence of widespread integrity concerns in the collected work of one author. We recommend that the involved journals collaborate in a formal investigation.

[Not all published data are reliable: fabricated data in medical research]. / Niet alle gepubliceerde data zijn betrouwbaar.

For a long time, the reliability of medical-scientific research was, without further verification, based on real data. It is becoming increasingly clear that this assumption is unjustified and that probably at least 25% of published randomized clinical trials are based on unreliable and sometimes even fabricated data. After giving a number of examples, it is discussed what the reader can do about this problem. More importantly, editors and publishers should no longer rely on whistle-blowers but take action themselves. If this does not happen, external parties must intervene. Society cannot afford (medical) science that is based on unreliable data.

Prognosis-based management of unexplained infertility-why not?

Up to a half of couples seeking medical assistance for infertility are diagnosed with unexplained infertility, characterized by normal ovulation, tubal patency, and semen analysis results. This condition presents a challenge in determining the optimal treatment approach. Available treatments include IUI and IVF, but guidelines vary on when to offer each. Prognosis-based management is identified as a research priority, and various prediction models have been developed to guide treatment decisions. Prognostic factors include female age, duration of subfertility, and sperm parameters, among others. Prognosis-based strategies can enhance cost-effectiveness, safety, and patient outcomes, offering less invasive options to those with good prognoses and more aggressive interventions to those with poor prognoses. However, there is a gap between research evidence and its clinical application. In this article, we discuss the application of prognosis-based management in the context of unexplained infertility, highlighting its potential to improve clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.

Study protocol for two randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of Cerclage in the reduction of extreme preterm birth and perinatal mortality in twin pregnancies with a short cervix or dilatation: the TWIN Cerclage studies.

INTRODUCTION: Twin pregnancies have a high risk of extreme preterm birth (PTB) at less than 28 weeks of gestation, which is associated with increased risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Currently there is a lack of effective treatments for women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix or cervical dilatation. A possible effective surgical method to reduce extreme PTB in twin pregnancies with an asymptomatic short cervix or dilatation at midpregnancy is the placement of a vaginal cerclage. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We designed two multicentre randomised trials involving eight hospitals in the Netherlands (sites in other countries may be added at a later date). Women older than 16 years with a twin pregnancy at <24 weeks of gestation and an asymptomatic short cervix of ≤25 mm or cervical dilatation will be randomly allocated (1:1) to both trials on vaginal cerclage and standard treatment according to the current Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology guideline (no cerclage). Permuted blocks sized 2 and 4 will be used to minimise the risk of disbalance. The primary outcome measure is PTB of <28 weeks. Analyses will be by intention to treat. The first trial is to demonstrate a risk reduction from 25% to 10% in the short cervix group, for which 194 patients need to be recruited. The second trial is to demonstrate a risk reduction from 80% to 35% in the dilatation group and will recruit 44 women. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committees in the Netherlands on 3/30/2023. Participants will be required to sign an informed consent form. The results will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Participants will be informed about the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05968794.

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.

A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project.

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these 'problematic studies' are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INSPECT-SR project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of 'checks' to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion. Methods: We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorised these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list. Results: Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool. Conclusions: A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool.

VaNoLaH trial: a study protocol-a multinational randomised controlled trial including two identical substudies comparing vaginal versus vNOTES (vaginal natural orifice transluminal surgery) hysterectomy or laparoscopic versus vNOTES hysterectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Hysterectomy is one of the most common surgeries performed in women. Minimally invasive methods are on the rise globally as they have been shown to decrease surgical morbidity compared with abdominal hysterectomy. Hysterectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) is the latest innovation. It combines the vaginal approach and endoscopy via the vagina. Large pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are lacking comparing outcomes after vNOTES, vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH). METHODS: Multicentre pragmatic RCT aiming to recruit 1000 women aged 18-75 years undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease. The RCT includes two identical substudies (groups A and B). If VH is considered safe and feasible, the patient will be randomised within group A (VH vs vNOTES). If VH is not considered safe or feasible, patients will be randomised within group B (LH vs vNOTES). ANALYSIS: Primary outcome is the proportion of women leaving the hospital within 12 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes are hospitalisation time, conversion rates, duration of the surgical procedure, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications and readmission. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Ethical Board Committee at Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium, has approved the research protocol 230704 (principal investigator). Before including patients, all centres will require local or national ethical approval. The results of the study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05971875.

"Hypertension in Pregnancy Intervention Trial At Term" and "Disproportionate Intrauterine Growth Intervention Trial At Term" Studies.

In 2003, in the context of a national research funding program in which obstetric research was prioritized, several perinatal centers took the initiative to jointly submit a number of applications to the subsidy programs of Effectiveness Research and Prevention of ZonMw. This has led to the funding of the Obstetric Consortium with several projects, including the "Hypertension in Pregnancy Intervention Trial At Term" and the "Disproportionate Intrauterine Growth Intervention Trial At Term" studies. The studies showed that induction of labor for hypertension and growth restriction at term was the appropriate management. Subsequent implementation improved maternal and perinatal outcomes.

Can serum progesterone concentration direct a fresh or freeze-all transfer strategy in the first in vitro fertilisation cycle?

PURPOSE: To examine the interaction between serum progesterone concentration on the trigger day and choice of freeze-all and fresh transfer strategies on live birth in an unselected population as well as in patients over 35 years old. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 26,661 patients commencing their first IVF cycle in a large fertility centre between 2015 and 2019, including 4687 patients over 35 years old. We performed a multivariable fractional polynomial interaction analysis within a logistic regression model to investigate the interaction between serum progesterone concentration and the choice of freeze-all or fresh transfer strategy following the first transfer. RESULTS: 15,539 patients underwent a fresh embryo transfer and 11,122 underwent a freeze-all strategy in their first IVF cycle. The freeze-all group had a higher live birth rate compared to the fresh group (43.9% vs 40.3%). After adjusting for confounding factors, there was a positive interaction between serum progesterone concentrations and the choice of a freeze-all versus fresh embryo transfer on live birth (p for interaction 0.0001), with a larger magnitude of effect when progesterone concentration was higher. Such an interaction was also observed in patients over 35 years old (p for interaction 0.01), but the treatment effect curve over progesterone concentrations was almost flat. CONCLUSIONS: In an unselected population, frozen transfer is associated with greater chances of live birth, especially in patients with higher serum progesterone concentration. In patients over 35 years old, the benefit of a freeze-all policy appears small across all serum progesterone concentrations.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.

The use of intrapartum ultrasound in operative vaginal birth: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Poor outcomes from operative vaginal birth have been associated with failure to recognize malposition, breakdown in interdisciplinary communication, and deviation from accepted guidelines. We recently implemented a safety bundle including routine intrapartum ultrasound and a structured time-out and procedural checklist aiming to reduce maternal and perinatal morbidity from operative vaginal birth. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare births where intrapartum ultrasound was used and those where it was not used during a safety bundle implementation period at Monash Health. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study at Monash Health during the transitional phase of implementing an operative vaginal birth safety bundle. We studied all women with operative vaginal birth and fully dilated cesarean delivery with a singleton cephalic term fetus. We compared births for which intrapartum ultrasound was used and those for which it was not. The primary outcome was neonates delivered in an unexpected position. Neonatal and maternal morbidity were also assessed, including a neonatal composite of Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, cord lactate >8 mmol/L, need for resuscitation, significant birth trauma, or neonatal intensive care unit admission. To control for confounding by indication, we estimated propensity scores for the probability of using intrapartum ultrasound for each case based on maternal and labor characteristics, and adjusted the effect estimates for the propensity scores using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: From August 2022 to July 2023, there were 1205 operative vaginal births or fully dilated cesarean deliveries at Monash Health, including 743 (61.7%) forceps, 346 (28.7%) vacuum, and 116 (9.6%) fully dilated cesarean deliveries. Over this time, we observed increased uptake of intrapartum ultrasound from 26% in August 2022 to 60% (P<.001) in July 2023, of the time-out from 21% to 58% (P<.001), and the checklist from 33% to 80% (P<.001) of operative second-stage births. Among the births where intrapartum ultrasound was used (n=509), compared with those where it was not (n=696), there were significantly more forceps births (67% vs 58%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.74; P=.021) and a reduction in vacuum births (24% vs 32%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.01; P=.059). There were no significant differences in fully dilated cesarean delivery or maternal morbidity. Intrapartum ultrasound use was associated with significantly fewer infants being delivered in an unexpected position (0.2% vs 2.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.44; P=.019) and a significant reduction in composite neonatal morbidity (22% vs 25%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.97; P=.031). CONCLUSION: During the implementation of a safety bundle, the use of ultrasound before operative vaginal birth was associated with fewer infants delivered in an unexpected position and reduced neonatal morbidity.

Vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labour: An individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour (IOL) is common practice and different methods carry different effectiveness and safety profiles. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness, and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes of IOL with vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone using individual participant data from randomised clinical trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched from inception to March 2023: CINAHL Plus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trial Register, Ovid Embase, Ovid Emcare, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with viable singleton gestation, no language restrictions, and all published and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: An individual participant data meta-analysis was carried out. MAIN RESULTS: Ten of 52 eligible trials provided individual participant data, of which two were excluded after checking data integrity. The remaining eight trials compared low-dose vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone, including 4180 women undergoing IOL, which represents 32.8% of all participants in the published RCTs. Of these, 2077 were assigned to low-dose vaginal misoprostol and 2103 were assigned to vaginal dinoprostone. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, low-dose vaginal misoprostol had a comparable rate of vaginal birth. Composite adverse perinatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, composite adverse maternal outcomes were significantly lower with low-dose vaginal misoprostol (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose vaginal misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for IOL are comparable in terms of effectiveness and perinatal safety. However, low-dose vaginal misoprostol is likely to lead to a lower rate of composite adverse maternal outcomes than vaginal dinoprostone.