Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection. DATA SOURCES: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian-Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff-Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%-91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for "need for mechanical ventilation," whereas effect estimates for "improvement" and "deterioration" clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours.

BACKGROUND: Brain tumours are recognised as one of the most difficult cancers to diagnose because presenting symptoms, such as headache, cognitive symptoms, and seizures, may be more commonly attributable to other, more benign conditions. Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours include national awareness initiatives, expedited pathways, and protocols to diagnose brain tumours, based on a person's presenting symptoms and signs; and interventions to reduce waiting times for brain imaging pathways. If such interventions reduce the time to diagnosis, it may make it less likely that people experience clinical deterioration, and different treatment options may be available. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that may influence: symptomatic participants to present early (shortening the patient interval), thresholds for primary care referral (shortening the primary care interval), and time to imaging diagnosis (shortening the secondary care interval and diagnostic interval). To produce a brief economic commentary, summarising the economic evaluations relevant to these interventions. SEARCH METHODS: For evidence on effectiveness, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from January 2000 to January 2020; Clinicaltrials.gov to May 2020, and conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018. For economic evidence, we searched the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2000 to December 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include studies evaluating any active intervention that may influence the diagnostic pathway, e.g. clinical guidelines, direct access imaging, public health campaigns, educational initiatives, and other interventions that might lead to early identification of primary brain tumours. We planned to include randomised and non-randomised comparative studies. Included studies would include people of any age, with a presentation that might suggest a brain tumour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy, and the full texts of potentially eligible studies. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, by consulting another review author. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this review. We excluded 115 studies. The main reason for exclusion of potentially eligible intervention studies was their study design, due to a lack of control groups. We found no economic evidence to inform a brief economic commentary on this topic. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this version of the review, we did not identify any studies that met the review inclusion criteria for either effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Therefore, there is no evidence from good quality studies on the best strategies to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours, despite the prioritisation of research on early diagnosis by the James Lind Alliance in 2015. This review highlights the need for research in this area.

Prenatal administration of progestogens for preventing spontaneous preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Multiple pregnancy is a strong risk factor for preterm birth, and more than 50% of women with a twin pregnancy will give birth prior to 37 weeks' gestation. Infants born preterm are recognised to be at increased risk of many adverse health outcomes, contributing to more than half of overall perinatal mortality. Progesterone is produced naturally in the body and has a role in maintaining pregnancy, although it is not clear whether administering progestogens to women with multiple pregnancy at high risk of early birth is effective and safe. Since publication of this new review in Issue 10, 2017, we have now moved one study (El-Refaie 2016) from included to studies awaiting classification, pending clarification about the study data. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of progesterone administration for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials examining the administration of a progestogen by any route for the prevention of preterm birth in women with multiple pregnancy. We did not include quasi-randomised or cross-over studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed reports identified by the search for eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 trials, which all compared either vaginal or intramuscular (IM) progesterone with a placebo or no treatment, and involved a total of 4548 women. The risk of bias for the majority of included studies was low, with the exception of three studies that had inadequate blinding, or significant loss to follow-up or both, or were not reported well enough for us to make a judgement. We graded the evidence low to high quality, with downgrading for statistical heterogeneity, design limitations in some of the studies contributing data, and imprecision of the effect estimate. 1 IM progesterone versus no treatment or placebo More women delivered at less than 34 weeks' gestation in the IM progesterone group compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 2.26; women = 399; studies = 2; low-quality evidence). Although the incidence of perinatal death in the progesterone group was higher, there was considerable uncertainty around the effect estimate and high heterogeneity between studies (average RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.51; infants = 3089; studies = 6; I2 = 71%; low-quality evidence). No studies reported maternal mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability at childhood follow-up. There were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal or infant outcomes (preterm birth less than 37 weeks (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13; women = 2010; studies = 5; high-quality evidence); preterm birth less than 28 weeks (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.55; women = 1920; studies = 5; moderate-quality evidence); infant birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.08; infants = 4071; studies = 5; I2 = 76%, moderate-quality evidence)). No childhood outcomes were reported in the trials. 2 Vaginal progesterone versus no treatment or placebo by dose There were no clear group differences in incidence of preterm birth before 34 weeks (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.23; women = 1503; studies = 5; I2 = 36%; low-quality evidence). Although fewer births before 34 weeks appeared to occur in the progesterone group, the CIs crossed the line of no effect. Incidence of perinatal death was higher in the progesterone group, although there was considerable uncertainty in the effect estimate and the quality of the evidence was low for this outcome (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.06; infants = 2287; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). No studies reported maternal mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability at childhood follow-up. There were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal or infant outcomes (preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06; women = 1597; studies = 6; moderate-quality evidence); preterm birth less than 28 weeks (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.97; women = 1345; studies = 3; low-quality evidence); infant birthweight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; infants = 2640; studies = 3; I2 = 66%, moderate-quality evidence)). No childhood outcomes were reported in the trials. For secondary outcomes, there were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal outcomes except for caesarean section, where women who received vaginal progesterone did not have as many caesarean sections as those in the placebo group, although the difference between groups was not large (8%) (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98; women = 1919; studies = 5; I2 = 0%). There were no clear group differences found in any of the infant outcomes except for mechanical ventilation, which was required by fewer infants whose mothers had received the vaginal progesterone (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; infants = 2695; studies = 4). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for women with a multiple pregnancy, the administration of progesterone (either IM or vaginal) does not appear to be associated with a reduction in risk of preterm birth or improved neonatal outcomes. Future research could focus on a comprehensive individual participant data meta-analysis including all of the available data relating to both IM and vaginal progesterone administration in women with a multiple pregnancy, before considering the need to conduct trials in subgroups of high-risk women (for example, women with a multiple pregnancy and a short cervical length identified on ultrasound).

Developing and applying a 'living guidelines' approach to WHO recommendations on maternal and perinatal health.

How should the WHO most efficiently keep its global recommendations up to date? In this article we describe how WHO developed and applied a 'living guidelines' approach to its maternal and perinatal health (MPH) recommendations, based on a systematic and continuous process of prioritisation and updating. Using this approach, 25 new or updated WHO MPH recommendations have been published in 2017-2018. The new approach helps WHO ensure its guidance is responsive to emerging evidence and remains up to date for end users.

Long-term neurocognitive and other side effects of radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, for glioma.

BACKGROUND: Gliomas are brain tumours arising from glial cells with an annual incidence of 4 to 11 people per 100,000. In this review we focus on gliomas with low aggressive potential in the short term, i.e. low-grade gliomas. Most people with low-grade gliomas are treated with surgery and may receive radiotherapy thereafter. However, there is concern about the possible long-term effects of radiotherapy, especially on neurocognitive functioning. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term neurocognitive and other side effects of radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) compared with no radiotherapy, or different types of radiotherapy, among people with glioma (where 'long-term' is defined as at least two years after diagnosis); and to write a brief economic commentary. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 16 February 2018 and updated the search on 14 November 2018: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid; and Embase via Ovid. We also searched clinical trial registries and relevant conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018 to identify ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised trials, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAS). Participants were aged 16 years and older with cerebral glioma other than glioblastoma. We included studies where patients in at least one treatment arm received radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, and where neurocognitive outcomes were assessed two or more years after treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of findings using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: The review includes nine studies: seven studies were of low-grade glioma and two were of grade 3 glioma. Altogether 2406 participants were involved but there was high sample attrition and outcome data were available for a minority of people at final study assessments. In seven of the nine studies, participants were recruited to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which longer-term follow-up was undertaken in a subset of people that had survived without disease progression. There was moderate to high risk of bias in studies due to lack of blinding and high attrition, and in two observational studies there was high risk of selection bias. Paucity of data and risk of bias meant that evidence was of low to very low certainty. We were unable to combine results in meta-analysis due to diversity in interventions and outcomes.The studies examined the following five comparisons.Radiotherapy versus no adjuvant treatmentTwo observational studies contributed data. At the 12-year follow-up in one study, the risk of cognitive impairment (defined as cognitive disability deficits in at least five of 18 neuropsychological tests) was greater in the radiotherapy group (risk ratio (RR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 3.71; n = 65); at five to six years the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.06; n = 195). In the other study, one subject in the radiotherapy group had cognitive impairment (defined as significant deterioration in eight of 12 neuropsychological tests) at two years compared with none in the control group (very low certainty evidence).With regard to neurocognitive scores, in one study the radiotherapy group was reported to have had significantly worse mean scores on some tests compared with no radiotherapy; however, the raw data were only given for significant findings. In the second study, there were no clear differences in any of the various cognitive outcomes at two years (n = 31) and four years (n = 15) (very low certainty evidence).Radiotherapy versus chemotherapyOne RCT contributed data on cognitive impairment at up to three years with no clear difference between arms (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.70, n = 117) (low-certainty evidence).High-dose radiotherapy versus low-dose radiotherapyOnly one of two studies reporting this comparison contributed data, and at two and five years there were no clear differences between high- and low-dose radiotherapy arms (very low certainty evidence).Conventional radiotherapy versus stereotactic conformal radiotherapyOne study involving younger people contributed limited data from the subgroup aged 16 to 25 years. The numbers of participants with neurocognitive impairment at five years after treatment were two out of 12 in the conventional arm versus none out of 11 in the stereotactic conformal radiotherapy arm (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.25 to 86.72; n = 23; low-certainty evidence).Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapyTwo RCTs tested for cognitive impairment. One defined cognitive impairment as a decline of more than 3 points in MMSE score compared with baseline and reported data from 2-year (110 participants), 3-year (91 participants), and 5-year (57 participants) follow-up with no clear difference between the two arms at any time point. A second study did not report raw data but measured MMSE scores over five years in 126 participants at two years, 110 at three years, 69 at four years and 53 at five years. Authors concluded that there was no difference in MMSE scores between the two study arms (P = 0.4752) (low-certainty evidence).Two RCTs reported quality of life (QoL) outcomes for this comparison. One reported no differences in Brain-QoL scores between study arms over a 5-year follow-up period (P = 0.2767; no raw data were given and denominators were not stated). The other trial reported that the long-term results of health-related QoL showed no difference between the arms but did not give the raw data for overall HRQoL scores (low-certainty evidence).We found no comparative data on endocrine dysfunction; we planned to develop a brief economic commentary but found no relevant economic studies for inclusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy for gliomas with a good prognosis may increase the risk of neurocognitive side effects in the long term; however the magnitude of the risk is uncertain. Evidence on long-term neurocognitive side effects associated with chemoradiotherapy is also uncertain. Neurocognitive assessment should be an integral part of long-term follow-up in trials involving radiotherapy for lower-grade gliomas to improve the certainty of evidence regarding long-term neurocognitive effects. Such trials should also assess other potential long-term effects, including endocrine dysfunction, and evaluate costs and cost effectiveness.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid, on 8 January 2018. We searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov. on 16 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RAS versus CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We examined different procedures in separate comparisons and for hysterectomy subgrouped data according to type of disease (non-malignant versus malignant). When more than one study contributed data, we pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs involving 1016 women. Studies were at moderate to high overall risk of bias, and we downgraded evidence mainly due to concerns about risk of bias in the studies contributing data and imprecision of effect estimates. Procedures performed were hysterectomy (eight studies) and sacrocolpopexy (three studies). In addition, one trial examined surgical treatment for endometriosis, which included resection or hysterectomy. Among studies of women undergoing hysterectomy procedures, two studies involved malignant disease (endometrial cancer); the rest involved non-malignant disease.• RAS versus CLS (hysterectomy)Low-certainty evidence suggests there might be little or no difference in any complication rates between RAS and CLS (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.59; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 51%), intraoperative complication rates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.50; participants = 583; studies = 6; I² = 37%), postoperative complications (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34; participants = 629; studies = 6; I² = 44%), and blood transfusions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.94; participants = 442; studies = 5; I² = 0%). There was no statistical difference between malignant and non-malignant disease subgroups with regard to complication rates. Only one study reported death within 30 days and no deaths occurred (very low-certainty evidence). Researchers reported no survival outcomes.Mean total operating time was longer on average in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) 41.18 minutes, 95% CI -6.17 to 88.53; participants = 148; studies = 2; I² = 80%; very low-certainty evidence), and the mean length of hospital stay was slightly shorter with RAS than with CLS (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.07; participants = 192; studies = 2; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).• RAS versus CLS (sacrocolpopexy)Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in rates of any complications between women undergoing sacrocolpopexy by RAS or CLS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.24; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 78%), nor in intraoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.59; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 47%). Low-certainty evidence on postoperative complications suggests these might be higher with RAS (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 9.56; studies = 1; participants = 68). Researchers did not report blood transfusions and deaths up to 30 days.Low-certainty evidence suggests that RAS might be associated with increased operating time (MD 40.53 min, 95% CI 12.06 to 68.99; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 73%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two techniques in terms of duration of stay (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.67; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 0%).• RAS versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy)A single study with a total sample size of 20 women was included in this comparison. For most outcomes, the sample size was insufficient to show any possible differences between groups.• RAS versus CLS for endometriosisA single study with data for 73 women was included in this comparison; women with endometriosis underwent procedures ranging from relatively minor endometrial resection through hysterectomy; many of the women included in this study had undergone previous surgery for their condition. For most outcomes, event rates were low, and the sample size was insufficient to detect potential differences between groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS for non-malignant disease (hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy) is of low certainty but suggests that surgical complication rates might be comparable. Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for malignant disease is more uncertain because survival data are lacking. RAS is an operator-dependent expensive technology; therefore evaluating the safety of this technology independently will present challenges.

Prenatal administration of progestogens for preventing spontaneous preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Multiple pregnancy is a strong risk factor for preterm birth, and more than 50% of women with a twin pregnancy will give birth prior to 37 weeks' gestation. Infants born preterm are recognised to be at increased risk of many adverse health outcomes, contributing to more than half of overall perinatal mortality. Progesterone is produced naturally in the body and has a role in maintaining pregnancy, although it is not clear whether administering progestogens to women with multiple pregnancy at high risk of early birth is effective and safe. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of progesterone administration for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials examining the administration of a progestogen by any route for the prevention of preterm birth in women with multiple pregnancy. We did not include quasi-randomised or cross-over studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed reports identified by the search for eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 trials, which all compared either vaginal or intramuscular (IM) progesterone with a placebo or no treatment, and involved a total of 4773 women. The risk of bias for the majority of included studies was low, with the exception of four studies that had inadequate blinding, or significant loss to follow-up or both, or were not reported well enough for us to make a judgement. We graded the evidence low to high quality, with downgrading for statistical heterogeneity, design limitations in some of the studies contributing data, and imprecision of the effect estimate. 1 IM progesterone versus no treatment or placeboMore women delivered at less than 34 weeks' gestation in the IM progesterone group compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 2.26; women = 399; studies = 2; low-quality evidence). Although the incidence of perinatal death in the progesterone group was higher, there was considerable uncertainty around the effect estimate and high heterogeneity between studies (average RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.51; infants = 3089; studies = 6; I2 = 71%; low-quality evidence). No studies reported maternal mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability at childhood follow-up.There were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal or infant outcomes (preterm birth less than 37 weeks (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13; women = 2010; studies = 5; high-quality evidence); preterm birth less than 28 weeks (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.55; women = 1920; studies = 5; moderate-quality evidence); infant birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.08; infants = 4071; studies = 5; I2 = 76%, moderate-quality evidence)). No childhood outcomes were reported in the trials. 2 Vaginal progesterone versus no treatment or placebo by doseThere were no clear group differences in incidence of preterm birth before 34 weeks (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.09; women = 1727; studies = 6; I2 = 46%; low-quality evidence). Although fewer births before 34 weeks appeared to occur in the progesterone group, the CIs crossed the line of no effect. Incidence of perinatal death was higher in the progesterone group, although there was considerable uncertainty in the effect estimate and the quality of the evidence was low for this outcome (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.06; infants = 2287; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). No studies reported maternal mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability at childhood follow-up.There were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal or infant outcomes (preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06; women = 1597; studies = 6; moderate-quality evidence); preterm birth less than 28 weeks (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.21; women = 1569; studies = 4; low-quality evidence); infant birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.03; infants = 3079; studies = 4; I2 = 49%, moderate-quality evidence)). No childhood outcomes were reported in the trials.For secondary outcomes, there were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal outcomes except for caesarean section, where women who received vaginal progesterone did not have as many caesarean sections as those in the placebo group, although the difference between groups was not large (7%) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.98; women = 2143; studies = 6; I2 = 0%). There were no clear group differences found in any of the infant outcomes except for mechanical ventilation, which was required by fewer infants whose mothers had received the vaginal progesterone (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77; infants = 3134; studies = 5). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for women with a multiple pregnancy, the administration of progesterone (either IM or vaginal) does not appear to be associated with a reduction in risk of preterm birth or improved neonatal outcomes.Future research could focus on a comprehensive individual participant data meta-analysis including all of the available data relating to both IM and vaginal progesterone administration in women with a multiple pregnancy, before considering the need to conduct trials in subgroups of high-risk women (for example, women with a multiple pregnancy and a short cervical length identified on ultrasound).

Different methods and settings for glucose monitoring for gestational diabetes during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing worldwide. Blood glucose monitoring plays a crucial part in maintaining glycaemic control in women with GDM and is generally recommended by healthcare professionals. There are several different methods for monitoring blood glucose which can be carried out in different settings (e.g. at home versus in hospital). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to compare the effects of different methods and settings for glucose monitoring for women with GDM on maternal and fetal, neonatal, child and adult outcomes, and use and costs of health care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs) comparing different methods (such as timings and frequencies) or settings, or both, for blood glucose monitoring for women with GDM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE, for:- primary outcomes for mothers: that is, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; caesarean section; type 2 diabetes; and- primary outcomes for children: that is, large-for-gestational age; perinatal mortality; death or serious morbidity composite; childhood/adulthood neurosensory disability;- secondary outcomes for mothers: that is, induction of labour; perineal trauma; postnatal depression; postnatal weight retention or return to pre-pregnancy weight; and- secondary outcomes for children: that is, neonatal hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood adiposity; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs (10 RCTs; one qRCT) that randomised 1272 women with GDM in upper-middle or high-income countries; we considered these to be at a moderate to high risk of bias. We assessed the RCTs under five comparisons. For outcomes assessed using GRADE, we downgraded for study design limitations, imprecision and inconsistency. Three trials received some support from commercial partners who provided glucose meters or financial support, or both. Main comparisons Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring (five RCTs): we observed no clear differences between the telemedicine and standard care groups for the mother, for:- pre-eclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension (risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 3.20; 275 participants; four RCTs; very low quality evidence);- caesarean section (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.53; 478 participants; 5 RCTs; very low quality evidence); and- induction of labour (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.77; 47 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence);or for the child, for:- large-for-gestational age (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.64; 228 participants; 3 RCTs; very low quality evidence);- death or serious morbidity composite (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.66; 57 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence); and- neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.72; 198 participants; 3 RCTs; very low quality evidence).There were no perinatal deaths in two RCTs (131 participants; very low quality evidence). Self-monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring (two RCTs): we observed no clear differences between the self-monitoring and periodic glucose monitoring groups for the mother, for:- pre-eclampsia (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.49; 58 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence); and- caesarean section (average RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.27; 400 participants; 2 RCTs; low quality evidence);or for the child, for:- perinatal mortality (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.21 to 11.24; 400 participants; 2 RCTs; very low quality evidence);- large-for-gestational age (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.37; 400 participants; 2 RCTs; low quality evidence); and- neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06; 391 participants; 2 RCTs; low quality evidence). Continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) versus self-monitoring of glucose (two RCTs): we observed no clear differences between the CGMS and self-monitoring groups for the mother, for:- caesarean section (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20; 179 participants; 2 RCTs; very low quality evidence);or for the child, for:- large-for-gestational age (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; 106 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence) and- neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.78; 179 participants; 2 RCTs; very low quality evidence).There were no perinatal deaths in the two RCTs (179 participants; very low quality evidence). Other comparisons Modem versus telephone transmission for glucose monitoring (one RCT): none of the review's primary outcomes were reported in this trial Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring (one RCT): we observed no clear differences between the postprandial and preprandial glucose monitoring groups for the mother, for:- pre-eclampsia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.68; 66 participants; 1 RCT);- caesarean section (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.29; 66 participants; 1 RCT); and- perineal trauma (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.29; 66 participants; 1 RCT);or for the child, for:- neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.10; 66 participants; 1 RCT).There were fewer large-for-gestational-age infants born to mothers in the postprandial compared with the preprandial glucose monitoring group (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.78; 66 participants; 1 RCT). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from 11 RCTs assessing different methods or settings for glucose monitoring for GDM suggests no clear differences for the primary outcomes or other secondary outcomes assessed in this review.However, current evidence is limited by the small number of RCTs for the comparisons assessed, small sample sizes, and the variable methodological quality of the RCTs. More evidence is needed to assess the effects of different methods and settings for glucose monitoring for GDM on outcomes for mothers and their children, including use and costs of health care. Future RCTs may consider collecting and reporting on the standard outcomes suggested in this review.

Schedules for home visits in the early postpartum period.

BACKGROUND: Maternal complications including psychological and mental health problems and neonatal morbidity have been commonly observed in the postpartum period. Home visits by health professionals or lay supporters in the weeks following the birth may prevent health problems from becoming chronic with long-term effects on women, their babies, and their families. OBJECTIVES: To assess outcomes for women and babies of different home-visiting schedules during the early postpartum period. The review focuses on the frequency of home visits, the duration (when visits ended) and intensity, and on different types of home-visiting interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 January 2013) and reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cluster-RCTs) comparing different types of home-visiting interventions enrolling participants in the early postpartum period (up to 42 days after birth). We excluded studies in which women were enrolled and received an intervention during the antenatal period (even if the intervention continued into the postnatal period) and studies recruiting only women from specific high-risk groups. (e.g. women with alcohol or drug problems). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study eligibility was assessed by at least two review authors. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were carried out independently by at least two review authors. Data were entered into Review Manager software. MAIN RESULTS: We included data from 12 randomised trials with data for more than 11,000 women. The trials were carried out in countries across the world, and in both high- and low-resource settings. In low-resource settings women receiving usual care may have received no additional postnatal care after early hospital discharge.The interventions and control conditions varied considerably across studies with trials focusing on three broad types of comparisons: schedules involving more versus fewer postnatal home visits (five studies), schedules involving different models of care (three studies), and home versus hospital clinic postnatal check-ups (four studies). In all but two of the included studies, postnatal care at home was delivered by healthcare professionals. The aim of all interventions was broadly to assess the wellbeing of mothers and babies, and to provide education and support, although some interventions had more specific aims such as to encourage breastfeeding, or to provide practical support.For most of our outcomes only one or two studies provided data, and overall results were inconsistent.There was no evidence that home visits were associated with improvements in maternal and neonatal mortality, and no consistent evidence that more postnatal visits at home were associated with improvements in maternal health. More intensive schedules of home visits did not appear to improve maternal psychological health and results from two studies suggested that women receiving more visits had higher mean depression scores. The reason for this finding was not clear. In a cluster randomised trial comparing usual care with individualised care by midwives extended up to three months after the birth, the proportions of women with Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS) scores ≥ 13 at four months was reduced in the individualised care group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86). There was some evidence that postnatal care at home may reduce infant health service utilisation in the weeks following the birth, and that more home visits may encourage more women to exclusively breastfeed their babies. There was some evidence that home visits are associated with increased maternal satisfaction with postnatal care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the number of postnatal home visits may promote infant health and maternal satisfaction and more individualised care may improve outcomes for women, although overall findings in different studies were not consistent. The frequency, timing, duration and intensity of such postnatal care visits should be based upon local and individual needs. Further well designed RCTs evaluating this complex intervention will be required to formulate the optimal package.

Different strategies for diagnosing gestational diabetes to improve maternal and infant health.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is carbohydrate intolerance resulting in hyperglycaemia with onset or first recognition during pregnancy. If untreated, perinatal morbidity and mortality may be increased. Accurate diagnosis allows appropriate treatment. Use of different tests and different criteria will influence which women are diagnosed with GDM. This is an update of a review published in 2011 and 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare different testing strategies for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus to improve maternal and infant health while assessing their impact on healthcare service costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 January 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials if they evaluated tests carried out to diagnose GDM. We excluded studies that used a quasi-random model, cluster-randomised or cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of seven small trials, with 1420 women. One trial including 726 women was identified by this update and examined the two step versus one step approach. These trials were assessed as having varying risk of bias, with few outcomes reported. We prespecified six outcomes to be assessed for quality using the GRADE approach for one comparison: 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) versus 100 g OGTT; data for only one outcome (diagnosis of gestational diabetes) were available for assessment. One trial compared three different methods of delivering glucose: a candy bar (39 women), a 50 g glucose polymer drink (40 women) and a 50 g glucose monomer drink (43 women). We have included the results reported by this trial as separate comparisons. No trial reported on measures of costs of health services.We examined six main comparisons. 75 g OGTT versus 100 g OGTT (1 trial, 248 women): women who received 75 g OGTT had a higher relative risk of being diagnosed with GDM (risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 6.75; very-low quality evidence). No data were reported for the following additional outcomes prespecified for GRADE assessment: caesarean section, macrosomia > 4.5 kg or however defined in the trial, long-term type 2 diabetes maternal, long-term type 2 diabetes infant and economic costs. Candy bar versus 50 g glucose monomer drink (1 trial, 60 women): more women receiving the candy bar, rather than glucose monomer, preferred the taste of the candy bar (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.86) and 1-hour glucose was less with the candy bar. There were no differences in the other outcomes reported (maternal side effects). No infant outcomes were reported or any review primary outcomes. 50 g glucose polymer drink versus 50 g glucose monomer drink (3 trials, 239 women): mean difference (MD) in gestation at birth was -0.80 weeks (1 trial, 100 women; 95% CI -1.69 to 0.09). Total side effects were less common with the glucose polymer drink (1 trial, 63 women; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.59), and no clear difference in taste acceptability was reported (1 trial, 63 women; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.29). Fewer women reported nausea following the 50 g glucose polymer drink compared with the 50 g glucose monomer drink (1 trial, 66 women; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.78). No other measures of maternal morbidity or outcomes for the infant were reported. 50 g glucose food versus 50 g glucose drink (1 trial, 30 women): women receiving glucose in their food, rather than as a drink, reported fewer side effects (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.56). No clear difference was noted in the number of women requiring further testing (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55). No other measures of maternal morbidity or outcome were reported for the infant or review primary outcomes. 75 g OGTT World Health Organization (WHO) criteria versus 75 g OGTT American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria (1 trial, 116 women): no clear differences in included outcomes were observed between women who received the 75 g OGTT and were diagnosed using criteria based on WHO (1999) recommendations and women who received the 75 g OGTT and were diagnosed using criteria recommended by the ADA (1979). Outcomes measured included diagnosis of gestational diabetes (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.25), caesarean section (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35), macrosomia defined as > 90th percentile by ultrasound or birthweight equal to or exceeding 4000 g (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.79), stillbirth (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.68) and instrumental birth (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.94). No other secondary outcomes were reported. Two-step approach (50 g oral glucose challenge test followed by selective 100 g OGTT Carpenter and Coustan criteria) versus one-step approach (universal 75 g OGTT ADA criteria) (1 trial, 726 women): women allocated the two-step approach had a lower risk of being diagnosed with GDM at 11 to 14 weeks' gestation compared to women allocated the one-step approach (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95). No other primary or secondary outcomes were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to suggest which strategy is best for diagnosing GDM. Large randomised trials are required to establish the best strategy for correctly identifying women with GDM.

Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal blood flow patterns in fetal circulation detected by Doppler ultrasound may indicate poor fetal prognosis. It is also possible that false positive Doppler ultrasound findings could lead to adverse outcomes from unnecessary interventions, including preterm delivery. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of Doppler ultrasound used to assess fetal well-being in high-risk pregnancies on obstetric care and fetal outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register on 31 March 2017 and checked reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of Doppler ultrasound for the investigation of umbilical and fetal vessels waveforms in high-risk pregnancies compared with no Doppler ultrasound. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials involving 10,667 women were included. Risk of bias in trials was difficult to assess accurately due to incomplete reporting. None of the evidence relating to our main outcomes was graded as high quality. The quality of evidence was downgraded due to missing information on trial methods, imprecision in risk estimates and heterogeneity. Eighteen of these studies compared the use of Doppler ultrasound of the umbilical artery of the unborn baby with no Doppler or with cardiotocography (CTG). One more recent trial compared Doppler examination of other fetal blood vessels (ductus venosus) with computerised CTG.The use of Doppler ultrasound of the umbilical artery in high-risk pregnancy was associated with fewer perinatal deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98, 16 studies, 10,225 babies, 1.2% versus 1.7 %, number needed to treat (NNT) = 203; 95% CI 103 to 4352, evidence graded moderate). The results for stillbirths were consistent with the overall rate of perinatal deaths, although there was no clear difference between groups for this outcome (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.04; 15 studies, 9560 babies, evidence graded low). Where Doppler ultrasound was used, there were fewer inductions of labour (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99, 10 studies, 5633 women, random-effects, evidence graded moderate) and fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97, 14 studies, 7918 women, evidence graded moderate). There was no comparative long-term follow-up of babies exposed to Doppler ultrasound in pregnancy in women at increased risk of complications.No difference was found in operative vaginal births (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14, four studies, 2813 women), nor in Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.24, seven studies, 6321 babies, evidence graded low). Data for serious neonatal morbidity were not pooled due to high heterogeneity between the three studies that reported it (1098 babies) (evidence graded very low).The use of Doppler to evaluate early and late changes in ductus venosus in early fetal growth restriction was not associated with significant differences in any perinatal death after randomisation. However, there was an improvement in long-term neurological outcome in the cohort of babies in whom the trigger for delivery was either late changes in ductus venosus or abnormalities seen on computerised CTG. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that the use of Doppler ultrasound on the umbilical artery in high-risk pregnancies reduces the risk of perinatal deaths and may result in fewer obstetric interventions. The results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence is not of high quality. Serial monitoring of Doppler changes in ductus venosus may be beneficial, but more studies of high quality with follow-up including neurological development are needed for evidence to be conclusive.

Breastfeeding education and support for women with twins or higher order multiples.

BACKGROUND: There are rising rates of multiple births worldwide with associated higher rates of complications and more hospital care, often due to prematurity. While there is strong evidence about the risks of not breastfeeding, rates of breastfeeding in women who have given birth to more than one infant are lower than with singleton births. Breastfeeding more than one infant can be more challenging because of difficulties associated with the birth or prematurity. The extra demands on the mother of frequent suckling, coordinating the needs of more than one infant or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit can lead to delayed initiation or early cessation. Additional options such as breast milk expression, the use of donor milk or different methods of supplementary feeding may be considered. Support and education about breastfeeding has been found to improve the duration of any breastfeeding for healthy term infants and their mothers, however evidence is lacking about interventions that are effective to support women with twins or higher order multiples. OBJECTIVES: To assess effectiveness of breastfeeding education and support for women with twins or higher order multiples. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 June 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 July 2016), the excluded studies list from the equivalent Cochrane review of singletons, and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing extra education or support for women with twins or higher order multiples were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We planned to assess the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach, but were unable to analyse any data. MAIN RESULTS: We found 10 trials (23 reports) of education and support for breastfeeding that included women with twins or higher order multiples. The quality of evidence was mixed, and the risk of bias was mostly high or unclear. It is difficult to blind women or staff to group allocation for this intervention, so in all studies there was high risk of performance and high or unclear risk of detection bias. Trials recruited 5787 women (this included 512 women interviewed as part of a cluster randomised trial); of these, data were available from two studies for 42 women with twins or higher order multiples. None of the interventions were specifically designed for women with more than one infant, and the outcomes for multiples were not reported separately for each infant. Due to the scarcity of evidence and the format in which data were reported, a narrative description of the data is presented, no analyses are presented in this review, and we were unable to GRADE the evidence.The two trials with data for women with multiple births compared home nurse visits versus usual care (15 women), and telephone peer counselling versus usual care (27 women). The number of women who initiated breastfeeding was reported (all 15 women in one study, 25 out of 27 women in one study). Stopping any breastfeeding before four to six weeks postpartum, stopping exclusive breastfeeding before four to six weeks postpartum, stopping any breastfeeding before six months postpartum andstopping exclusive breastfeeding before six months postpartum were not explicitly reported, and there were insufficient data to draw any meaningful conclusions from survival data. Stopping breast milk expression before four to six weeks postpartum, andstopping breast milk expression before six months postpartum were not reported. Measures ofmaternal satisfaction were reported in one study of 15 women, but there were insufficient data to draw any conclusions; no other secondary outcomes were reported for women with multiple births in either study. No adverse events were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence from randomised controlled trials about the effectiveness of breastfeeding education and support for women with twins or higher order multiples, or the most effective way to provide education and support . There was no evidence about the best way to deliver the intervention, the timing of care, or the best person to deliver the care. There is a need for well-designed, adequately powered studies of interventions designed for women with twins or higher order multiples to find out what types of education and support are effective in helping these mothers to breastfeed their babies.

Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012-13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 µg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 µg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed 'best'. Few studies collected information on women's views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention. FUTURE WORK: Future trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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

Editorial note: It has been brought to the authors' attention that there may be an error in the data (Analysis 1.9). This is currently under investigation, and a correction will be made if the data are found to be incorrect. Details can be found in the comments. 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; I(2) = 89%). In one study with data for 818 women, third- and fourth-degree perineal tears were increased in the induction group (RR 3.70, 95% CI 1.04 to 13.17).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 unexpected observation in the induction group of increased perineal damage, and the plausible, but of uncertain significance, observation of increased use of phototherapy, both 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.

Reduction of the number of fetuses for women with a multiple pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: When couples are faced with the dilemma of a higher-order multiple pregnancy there are three options. Termination of the entire pregnancy has generally not been acceptable to women, especially for those with a past history of infertility. Attempting to continue with all the fetuses is associated with inherent problems of preterm birth, survival and long-term morbidity. The other alternative relates to reduction in the number of fetuses by selective termination. The acceptability of these options for the couple will depend on their social background and underlying beliefs. This review focused on reduction in the number of fetuses. OBJECTIVES: To assess a policy of multifetal reduction with a policy of expectant management of women with a multiple pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials with reported data that compared outcomes in mothers and babies who were managed expectantly with outcomes in women who underwent selective fetal reduction of a multiple pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We planned that two review authors would independently assess trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extract data and check them for accuracy. However, no randomised trials were identified. MAIN RESULTS: There were no randomised controlled trials identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no available data from randomised trials to inform the risks and benefits of pregnancy reduction procedures for women with a multiple pregnancy. While randomised controlled trials will provide the most reliable evidence about the risks and benefits of fetal reduction procedures, reduction in the number of fetuses by selective termination may not be acceptable to women, particularly couples with a past history of infertility. The acceptability of this option, and willingness to undergo randomisation will depend on the couple's social background and beliefs, and consequently, recruitment to such a trial may prove exceptionally difficult.

Specialised antenatal clinics for women with a multiple pregnancy for improving maternal and infant outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Regular antenatal care for women with a multiple pregnancy is accepted practice, and while most women have an increase in the number of antenatal visits, there is no consensus as to what constitutes optimal care. 'Specialised' antenatal clinics have been advocated as a way of improving outcomes for women and their infants. OBJECTIVES: To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of 'specialised' antenatal clinics compared with 'standard' antenatal care for women with a multiple pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials with reported data that compared outcomes in mothers and babies with a multiple pregnancy who received antenatal care specifically designed for women with a multiple pregnancy (as defined by the trial authors) with outcomes in controls who received 'standard' antenatal care (as defined by the trial authors). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two of the review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. Both review authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We graded the quality of the evidence using GRADEpro software. MAIN RESULTS: Findings were based on the results of a single study with some design limitations.Data were available from one study involving 162 women with a multiple pregnancy. For the only reported primary outcome, perinatal mortality, we are uncertain whether specialised antenatal clinics makes any difference compared to standard care (risk ratio (RR) 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 4.03; 324 infants, very low quality evidence). Women receiving specialised antenatal care were significantly more likely to birth by caesarean section (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.81; 162 women, moderate quality evidence). Data were not reported in the study on the following primary outcomes: small-for-gestational age, very preterm birth or maternal death. There were no differences identified between specialised antenatal care and standard care for other secondary outcomes examined: postnatal depression (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.20; 133 women, very low quality evidence), breastfeeding (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.68; 123 women, very low quality evidence), stillbirth (RR 0.68; 0.12 to 4.04) or neonatal death (RR 2.05; 95% CI 0.19 to 22.39) (324 infants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently limited information available from randomised controlled trials to assess the role of 'specialised' antenatal clinics for women with a multiple pregnancy compared with 'standard' antenatal care in improving maternal and infant health outcomes. The value of 'specialised' multiple pregnancy clinics in improving health outcomes for women and their infants requires evaluation in appropriately powered and designed randomised controlled trials.

Intermittent oral iron supplementation during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia is a frequent condition during pregnancy, particularly among women in low- and middle-income countries. Traditionally, gestational anaemia has been prevented with daily iron supplements throughout pregnancy, but adherence to this regimen due to side effects, interrupted supply of the supplements, and concerns about safety among women with an adequate iron intake, have limited the use of this intervention. Intermittent (i.e. two or three times a week on non-consecutive days) supplementation has been proposed as an alternative to daily supplementation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of intermittent supplementation with iron alone or in combination with folic acid or other vitamins and minerals to pregnant women on neonatal and pregnancy outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2015), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 July 2015) and contacted relevant organisations for the identification of ongoing and unpublished studies (31 July 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the methodological quality of trials using standard Cochrane criteria. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and conducted checks for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 27 trials from 15 countries, but only 21 trials (with 5490 women) contributed data to the review. All studies compared daily versus intermittent iron supplementation. The methodological quality of included studies was mixed and most had high levels of attrition.The overall assessment of the quality of the evidence for primary infant outcomes was low and for maternal outcomes very low.Of the 21 trials contributing data, three studies provided intermittent iron alone, 14 intermittent iron + folic acid and four intermittent iron plus multiple vitamins and minerals in comparison with the same composition of supplements provided in a daily regimen.Overall, for women receiving any intermittent iron regimen (with or without other vitamins and minerals) compared with a daily regimen there was no clear evidence of differences between groups for any infant primary outcomes: low birthweight (average risk ratio (RR) 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.22; participants = 1898; studies = eight; low quality evidence), infant birthweight (mean difference (MD) 5.13 g; 95% CI -29.46 to 39.72; participants = 1939; studies = nine; low quality evidence), premature birth (average RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.39; participants = 1177; studies = five; low quality evidence), or neonatal death (average RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.04 to 5.42; participants = 795; studies = one; very low quality). None of the studies reported congenital anomalies.For maternal outcomes, there was no clear evidence of differences between groups for anaemia at term (average RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.80; participants = 676; studies = four; I² = 10%; very low quality). Women receiving intermittent supplementation had fewer side effects (average RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.84; participants = 1777; studies = 11; I² = 87%; very low quality) and were at lower risk of having high haemoglobin (Hb) concentrations (greater than 130 g/L) during the second or third trimester of pregnancy (average RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.74; participants = 2616; studies = 15; I² = 52%; (this was not a primary outcome)) compared with women receiving daily supplements. There were no significant differences in iron-deficiency anaemia at term between women receiving intermittent or daily iron + folic acid supplementation (average RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.08 to 6.63; participants = 156; studies = one). There were no maternal deaths (six studies) or women with severe anaemia in pregnancy (six studies). None of the studies reported on iron deficiency at term or infections during pregnancy.Most of the studies included in the review (14/21 contributing data) compared intermittent oral iron + folic acid supplementation compared with daily oral iron + folic acid supplementation (4653 women) and findings for this comparison broadly reflect findings for the main comparison (any intermittent versus any daily regimen).Three studies with 464 women examined supplementation with intermittent oral iron alone compared with daily oral iron alone. There were no clear differences between groups for mean birthweight, preterm birth, maternal anaemia or maternal side effects. Other primary outcomes were not reported.Four studies with a combined sample size of 412 women compared intermittent oral iron + vitamins and minerals supplementation with daily oral iron + vitamins and minerals supplementation. Results were not reported for any of the review's infant primary outcomes. One study reported fewer maternal side effects in the intermittent iron group, and two studies that more women were anaemic at term compared with those receiving daily supplementation.Where sufficient data were available for primary outcomes, we set up subgroups to look for possible differences between studies in terms of earlier or later supplementation; women's anaemia status at the start of supplementation; higher and lower weekly doses of iron; and the malarial status of the region in which the trials were conducted. There was no clear effect of these variables on results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review is the most comprehensive summary of the evidence assessing the benefits and harms of intermittent iron supplementation in pregnant women on haematological and pregnancy outcomes. Findings suggest that intermittent regimens produced similar maternal and infant outcomes as daily supplementation but were associated with fewer side effects and reduced the risk of high levels of Hb in mid and late pregnancy, although the risk of mild anaemia near term was increased. While the quality of the evidence was assessed as low or very low, intermittent may be a feasible alternative to daily iron supplementation among those pregnant women who are not anaemic and have adequate antenatal care.

Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Nausea, retching and vomiting are very commonly experienced by women in early pregnancy. There are considerable physical, social and psychological effects on women who experience these symptoms. This is an update of a review of interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy last published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of all interventions for nausea, vomiting and retching in early pregnancy, up to 20 weeks' gestation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (19 January 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of any intervention for nausea, vomiting and retching in early pregnancy. We excluded trials of interventions for hyperemesis gravidarum, which are covered by another Cochrane review. We also excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials using a cross-over design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors, in pairs, reviewed the eligibility of trials and independently evaluated the risk of bias and extracted the data for included trials. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one trials involving 5449 women, met the inclusion criteria. These trials covered many interventions, including acupressure, acustimulation, acupuncture, ginger, chamomile, lemon oil, mint oil, vitamin B6 and several antiemetic drugs. There were no included studies of dietary and other lifestyle interventions. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of P6 acupressure, auricular (ear) acupressure and acustimulation of the P6 point was limited. Acupuncture (P6 or traditional) showed no significant benefit to women in pregnancy. The use of ginger products may be helpful to women, but the evidence of effectiveness was limited and not consistent, though three recent studies support ginger over placebo. There was only limited evidence from trials to support the use of pharmacological agents including vitamin B6, Doxylamine-pyridoxoine and other anti-emetic drugs to relieve mild or moderate nausea and vomiting. There was little information on maternal and fetal adverse outcomes and on psychological, social or economic outcomes.We were unable to pool findings from studies for most outcomes due to heterogeneity in study participants, interventions, comparison groups, and outcomes measured or reported. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Risk of bias was low related to performance bias, detection bias and attrition bias for most studies. Selection bias risk was unclear for many studies and almost half of the studies did not fully or clearly report all pre-specified outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the high prevalence of nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy, women and health professionals need clear guidance about effective and safe interventions, based on systematically reviewed evidence. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to support any particular intervention. This is not the same as saying that the interventions studied are ineffective, but that there is insufficient strong evidence for any one intervention. The difficulties in interpreting and pooling the results of the studies included in this review highlight the need for specific, consistent and clearly justified outcomes and approaches to measurement in research studies.

Daily oral iron supplementation during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Iron and folic acid supplementation has been the preferred intervention to improve iron stores and prevent anaemia among pregnant women, and it is thought to improve other maternal and birth outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of daily oral iron supplements for pregnant women, either alone or in conjunction with folic acid, or with other vitamins and minerals as a public health intervention in antenatal care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (10 January 2015). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (26 February 2015) and contacted relevant organisations for the identification of ongoing and unpublished studies (26 February 2015) . SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of oral preventive supplementation with daily iron, iron + folic acid or iron + other vitamins and minerals during pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the methodological quality of trials using standard Cochrane criteria. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and conducted checks for accuracy. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence for primary outcomes.We anticipated high heterogeneity among trials and we pooled trial results using a random-effects model and were cautious in our interpretation of the pooled results: the random-effects model gives the average treatment effect. MAIN RESULTS: We included 61 trials. Forty-four trials, involving 43,274 women, contributed data and compared the effects of daily oral supplements containing iron versus no iron or placebo.Preventive iron supplementation reduced maternal anaemia at term by 70% (risk ratio (RR) 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.46, 14 trials, 2199 women, low quality evidence), iron-deficiency anaemia at term (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.69, six trials, 1088 women), and iron deficiency at term by 57% (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.66, seven trials, 1256 women, low quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for severe anaemia in the second or third trimester, or maternal infection during pregnancy (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.20, nine trials, 2125 women, very low quality evidence; and, RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.33 to 4.46; one trial, 727 women, low quality evidence, respectively), or maternal mortality (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.19, two trials, 12,560 women, very low quality evidence), or reporting of side effects (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.83 to 2.02, 11 trials, 2423 women, very low quality evidence). Women receiving iron were on average more likely to have higher haemoglobin (Hb) concentrations at term and in the postpartum period, but were at increased risk of Hb concentrations greater than 130 g/L during pregnancy, and at term.Compared with controls, women taking iron supplements less frequently had low birthweight newborns (8.4% versus 10.3%, average RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.03, 11 trials, 17,613 women, low quality evidence), and preterm babies (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03, 13 trials, 19,286 women, moderate quality evidence). They appeared to also deliver slightly heavier babies (mean difference (MD) 23.75; 95% CI -3.02 to 50.51, 15 trials, 18,590 women, moderate quality evidence). None of these results were statistically significant. There were no clear differences between groups for neonatal death (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18, four trials, 16,603 infants, low quality evidence), or congenital anomalies (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.33, four trials, 14,636 infants, low quality evidence).Twenty-three studies were conducted in countries that in 2011 had some malaria risk in parts of the country. In some of these countries/territories, malaria is present only in certain areas or up to a particular altitude. Only two of these studies reported malaria outcomes. There is no evidence that iron supplementation increases placental malaria. For some outcomes heterogeneity was higher than 50%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation reduces the risk of maternal anaemia and iron deficiency in pregnancy but the positive effect on other maternal and infant outcomes is less clear. Implementation of iron supplementation recommendations may produce heterogeneous results depending on the populations' background risk for low birthweight and anaemia, as well as the level of adherence to the intervention.