Change in attitudes and perceptions of undergraduate health profession students towards inter-professional education following an educational experience in post natal care.

BACKGROUND: Inter-professional Education (IPE) has been identified as an educational program aimed at increasing collaboration among health professionals, and improving health care outcomes. IPE programs have been incorporated in several countries and have shown positive results. The same may not be true for Asian cultures which are typically more hierarchical than others. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of IPE on undergraduate health professional students' attitudes and perceptions in an Indian context. METHODS: Following an IPE experience undergraduate health professional students (n = 96) from three professions (Medicine, Nursing and Physiotherapy) completed a validated retro-pre questionnaire. Paired-sample t test was used to compare pre-test and post-test scores and ANOVA was used to compare the magnitude of change. Qualitative analysis was done for the open ended questions. RESULTS: The three professions showed a significant improvement in attitude (p < 0.001). The physiotherapists were more comfortable (p = 0.021) with questioning and being questioned and the nurses showed a significantly (p = 0.012) greater increase in extent of reliability as compared to the other two professionals. Participants identified the concepts of "team work", "knowledge of roles of other professionals" and "communication" as important to their learning and practice. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified a positive attitude among students and the given intervention resulted in a significant improvement in their comfort levels and reliability on other professionals. It would be reasonable to conclude therefore that acceptability for Inter professional education in the Indian context is high in spite of the cultural differences and hierarchical nuances.

Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre-existing diabetes.

BACKGROUND: There are a number of ways of monitoring blood glucose in women with diabetes during pregnancy, with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) recommended as a key component of the management plan. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of different techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear. This review is an update of a review that was first published in 2014 and subsequently updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 November 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), automated telemedicine monitoring or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also eligible for inclusion. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes a total of 12 trials (863) women (792 women with type 1 diabetes and 152 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe, the USA and Canada. Three of the 12 included studies are at low risk of bias, eight studies are at moderate risk of bias, and one study is at high risk of bias. Four trials reported that they were provided with the continuous glucose monitors free of charge or at a reduced cost by the manufacturer.Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) versus intermittent glucose monitoring, (four studies, 609 women)CGM may reduce hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and pregnancy-induced hypertension) (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.85; 2 studies, 384 women; low-quality evidence), although it should be noted that only two of the four relevant studies reported data for this composite outcome. Conversely, this did not translate into a clear reduction for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.08; 4 studies, 609 women, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no clear reduction in caesarean section (average RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.18; 3 studies, 427 women; I2 = 41%; moderate-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.26; 3 studies, 421 women; I2 = 70%; low-quality evidence) with CGM. There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.05 to 12.61, 71 infants, 1 study; low-quality evidence), or mortality or morbidity composite (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.06; 1 study, 200 women) as the evidence was based on single studies of low quality. CGM appears to reduce neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93; 3 studies, 428 infants). Neurosensory disability was not reported.Other methods of glucose monitoringFor the following five comparisons, self-monitoring versus a different type of self-monitoring (two studies, 43 women); self-monitoring at home versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women), pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women), automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women), and constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women), it is uncertain whether any of the interventions has any impact on any of our GRADE outcomes (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesarean section, large-for-gestational age) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low. This was due to evidence largely being derived from single trials, with design limitations and limitations with imprecision (wide CIs, small sample sizes, and few events). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Other important outcomes, such as neurosensory disability, were not reported in any of these comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Two new studies (406 women) have been incorporated to one of the comparisons for this update. Although the evidence suggests that CGM in comparison to intermittent glucose monitoring may reduce hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, this did not translate into a clear reduction for pre-eclampsia, and so this result should be viewed with caution. No differences were observed for other primary outcomes for this comparison. The evidence base for the effectiveness of other monitoring techniques analysed in the other five comparisons is weak and based on mainly single studies with very low-quality evidence. Additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of other glucose monitoring techniques and to confirm the effectiveness of CGM.

Epidural therapy for the treatment of severe pre-eclampsia in non labouring women.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a pregnancy-specific multi-organ disorder, which is characterised by hypertension and multisystem organ involvement and which has significant maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. Failure of the placental vascular remodelling and reduced uteroplacental flow form the etiopathological basis of pre-eclampsia. There are several established therapies for pre-eclampsia including antihypertensives and anticonvulsants. Most of these therapies aim at controlling the blood pressure or preventing complications of elevated blood pressure, or both. Epidural therapy aims at blocking the vasomotor tone of the arteries, thereby increasing uteroplacental blood flow. This review was aimed at evaluating the available evidence about the possible benefits and risks of epidural therapy in the management of severe pre-eclampsia, to define the current evidence level of this therapy, and to determine what (if any) further evidence is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness, safety and cost of the extended use of epidural therapy for treating severe pre-eclampsia in non-labouring women. This review aims to compare the use of extended epidural therapy with other methods, which include intravenous magnesium sulphate, anticonvulsants other than magnesium sulphate, with or without use of the antihypertensive drugs and adjuncts in the treatment of severe pre-eclampsia.This review only considered the use of epidural anaesthesia in the management of severe pre-eclampsia in the antepartum period and not as pain relief in labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (13 July 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing epidural therapy versus traditional therapy for pre-eclampsia in the form of antihypertensives, anticonvulsants, magnesium sulphate, low-dose dopamine, corticosteroids or a combination of these, were eligible for inclusion. Trials using a cluster design, and studies published in abstract form only are also eligible for inclusion in this review. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. There were no relevant data available for extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included one small study (involving 24 women). The study was a single-centre randomised trial conducted in Mexico. This study compared a control group who received antihypertensive therapy, anticonvulsant therapy, plasma expanders, corticosteroids and dypyridamole with an intervention group that received epidural block instead of the antihypertensives, as well as all the other four drugs. Lumbar epidural block was given using 0.25% bupivacaine, 10 mg bolus and 5 mg each hour on continuous epidural infusion for six hours. This study was at low risk of bias in three domains but was assessed to be high risk of bias in two domains due to lack of allocation concealment and blinding of women and staff, and unclear for random sequence generation and outcome assessor blinding.The included study did not report on any of this review's important outcomes. Meta-analysis was not possible.For the mother, these were: maternal death (death during pregnancy or up to 42 days after the end of the pregnancy, or death more than 42 days after the end of the pregnancy); development of eclampsia or recurrence of seizures; stroke; any serious morbidity: defined as at least one of stroke, kidney failure, liver failure, HELLP syndrome (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets), disseminated intravascular coagulation, pulmonary oedema.For the baby, these were: death: stillbirths (death in utero at or after 20 weeks' gestation), perinatal deaths (stillbirths plus deaths in the first week of life), death before discharge from the hospital, neonatal deaths (death within the first 28 days after birth), deaths after the first 28 days; preterm birth (defined as the birth before 37 completed weeks' gestation); and side effects of the intervention. Reported outcomesThe included study only reported on a single secondary outcome of interest to this review: the Apgar score of the baby at birth and after five minutes and there was no clear difference between the intervention and control groups.The included study also reported a reduction in maternal diastolic arterial pressure. However, the change in maternal mean arterial pressure and systolic arterial pressure, which were the other reported outcomes of this trial, were not significantly different between the two groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness, safety or cost of using epidural therapy for treating severe pre-eclampsia in non-labouring women.High-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to evaluate the use of epidural agents as therapy for treatment of severe pre-eclampsia. The rationale for the use of epidural is well-founded. However there is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to show that the effect of epidural translates into improved maternal and fetal outcomes. Thus, there is a need for larger, well-designed studies to come to an evidence-based conclusion as to whether the lowering of vasomotor tone by epidural therapy results in better maternal and fetal outcomes and for how long that could be maintained. Another important question that needs to be answered is how long should extended epidural be used to ensure any potential clinical benefits and what could be the associated side effects and costs. Interactions with other modalities of treatment and women's satisfaction could represent other avenues of research.

Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre-existing diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is recommended as a key component of the management plan for diabetes therapy during pregnancy. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of various techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.

Non-surgical interventions for treating heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) in women with bleeding disorders.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding without an organic lesion is mainly due to an imbalance of the various hormones which have a regulatory effect on the menstrual cycle. Another cause of heavy menstrual bleeding with no pelvic pathology, is the presence of an acquired or inherited bleeding disorder. The haemostatic system has a central role in controlling the amount and the duration of menstrual bleeding, thus abnormally prolonged or profuse bleeding does occur in most women affected by bleeding disorders. Whereas irregular, pre-menarchal or post-menopausal uterine bleeding is unusual in inherited or acquired haemorrhagic disorders, severe acute bleeding and heavy menstrual bleeding at menarche and chronic heavy menstrual bleeding during the entire reproductive life are common. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of non-surgical interventions versus each other, placebo or no treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss in women with bleeding disorders. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (25 August 2016), Embase (May 2013), LILACS (February 2013) and the WHO International Clinical Trial registry (February 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies of non-surgical interventions for treating heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) in women of reproductive age suffering from a congenital or acquired bleeding disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Three cross-over studies, with 175 women were included in the review. All three studies had an unclear risk of bias with regards to trial design and overall, the quality of evidence generated was judged to be poor.Two of the studies (n = 59) compared desmopressin (1-deamino-8-D-arginine vasopressin) with placebo. Menstrual blood loss was the primary outcome for both of these studies. Neither study found clear evidence of a difference between groups. The first of these reported a mean difference in menstrual blood loss in the desmopressin versus placebo group of 21.20 mL (95% confidence interval -19.00 to 61.50)The second study reported that even though there was an improvement of pictorial bleeding assessment chart scores with desmopressin and placebo when compared to pretreatment assessment, there was no clear evidence of difference in these scores when the two were compared to each other (results presented graphically, P = 0.51). The data from these studies could not be combined.The third study (n = 116) compared desmopressin with tranexamic acid (n = 116). This study found a decrease in pictorial bleeding assessment chart scores after both treatments as compared to baseline. The decrease in these scores was greater for tranexamic acid than for desmopressin, with a mean difference of 41.6 mL (95% confidence interval 19.6 to 63) (P < 0.0002).In relation to adverse events, across two studies, there was no clear evidence of a difference when placebo was compared to desmopressin, risk ratio 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 3.34) . The same was also true when desmopressin was compared to tranexamic acid, risk ratio 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 3.34).Only the study that compared desmopressin to tranexamic acid assessed quality of life. However, we are unable to present any data from this study, since no differences in this outcome between the two intervention groups were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from randomised controlled studies on the effect of desmopressin when compared to placebo in reducing menstrual blood loss is very limited and inconclusive. Two studies, each with a very limited number of participants, have shown uncertain effects in menstrual blood loss and adverse effects. A non-randomised comparison in one of the studies points to the value of combining desmopressin and tranexamic acid, which needs to be tested in a formal randomised controlled study comparison.When tranexamic acid was compared to desmopressin, a single study showed a reduction in menstrual blood loss with tranexamic acid use compared to desmopressin.There is a need to evaluate non-surgical methods for treating of menorrhagia in women with bleeding disorders through randomised controlled studies. Such methods would be more acceptable than surgery for women wishing to retain their fertility. Given that women may need to use these treatments throughout their entire reproductive life, long-term side-effects should be evaluated.

Non-surgical interventions for treating heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) in women with bleeding disorders.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding without an organic lesion is mainly due to an imbalance of the various hormones which have a regulatory effect on the menstrual cycle. Another cause of heavy menstrual bleeding with no pelvic pathology, is the presence of an acquired or inherited bleeding disorder. The haemostatic system has a central role in controlling the amount and the duration of menstrual bleeding, thus abnormally prolonged or profuse bleeding does occur in most women affected by bleeding disorders. Whereas irregular, pre-menarchal or post-menopausal uterine bleeding is unusual in inherited or acquired haemorrhagic disorders, severe acute bleeding and heavy menstrual bleeding at menarche and chronic heavy menstrual bleeding during the entire reproductive life are common. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of non-surgical interventions versus each other, placebo or no treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss in women with bleeding disorders. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (13 March 2014), Embase (May 2013), LILACS (February 2013) and the WHO International Clinical Trial registry (February 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies of non-surgical interventions for treating heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) in women of reproductive age suffering from a congenital or acquired bleeding disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Three cross-over studies, with 175 participants were included in the review. All three studies had an unclear risk of bias with regards to trial design and overall, the quality of evidence generated was judged to be poor.Two of the studies (n = 59) compared desmopressin (1-deamino-8-D-arginine vasopressin) with placebo. Menstrual blood loss was the primary outcome for both of these studies. Neither study found clear evidence of a difference between groups. The first of these reported a mean difference in menstrual blood loss in the desmopressin versus placebo group of 21.20 mL (95% confidence interval -19.00 to 61.50)The second study reported that even though there was an improvement of pictorial bleeding assessment chart scores with desmopressin and placebo when compared to pretreatment assessment, there was no clear evidence of difference in these scores when the two were compared to each other (results presented graphically, P = 0.51). The data from these studies could not be combined.The third study (n = 116) compared desmopressin with tranexamic acid (n = 116). This study found a decrease in pictorial bleeding assessment chart scores after both treatments as compared to baseline. The decrease in these scores was greater for tranexamic acid than for desmopressin, with a mean difference of 41.6 mL (95% confidence interval 19.6 to 63) (P < 0.0002).In relation to adverse events, across two studies, there was no clear evidence of a difference when placebo was compared to desmopressin, risk ratio 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 3.34) . The same was also true when desmopressin was compared to tranexamic acid, risk ratio 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 3.34).Only the study that compared desmopressin to tranexamic acid assessed quality of life. However, we are unable to present any data from this study, since no differences in this outcome between the two intervention groups were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from randomised controlled studies on the effect of desmopressin when compared to placebo in reducing menstrual blood loss is very limited and inconclusive. Two studies, each with a very limited number of participants, have shown uncertain effects in menstrual blood loss and adverse effects. A non-randomised comparison in one of the studies points to the value of combining desmopressin and tranexamic acid, which needs to be tested in a formal randomised controlled study comparison.When tranexamic acid was compared to desmopressin, a single study showed a reduction in menstrual blood loss with tranexamic acid use compared to desmopressin.There is a need to evaluate non-surgical methods for treating of menorrhagia in women with bleeding disorders through randomised controlled studies. Such methods would be more acceptable than surgery for women wishing to retain their fertility. Given that women may need to use these treatments throughout their entire reproductive life, long-term side-effects should be evaluated.

Antibiotics prior to amniotomy for reducing infectious morbidity in mother and infant.

BACKGROUND: Amniotomy (the deliberate rupture of membranes) was described almost two centuries ago and since then has been used both for induction and augmentation of labour - which are common obstetric practices. Trends have shown a rise in the induction rates over the last decade and data suggest that the rate of labour inductions is increasing faster than the rate of pregnancy complications. Recent years have seen the emergence of a variety of other methods of induction of labour but amniotomy combined with oxytocin infusion remains the most commonly used method of augmentation of labour. The newer agents for induction are expensive and in resource-poor settings amniotomy is still the chosen method for both induction and augmentation.As with any invasive procedure amniotomy can lead to infection, ascending from the vagina into the uterine cavity and can contribute significantly to both maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to evaluate the prophylactic use of antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment prior to amniotomy on maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity and mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2014), the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov (12 September 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing antibiotics prior to amniotomy versus placebo (or no treatment) were eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. Quasi-randomised trials or cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed one trial report for inclusion. In future updates of this review, two review authors will independently assess risk of bias and carry out data extraction. Data will be checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one trial report but this was excluded. No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-quality trials are needed to justify or refute the routine use of antibiotics at amniotomy for prevention of infection in the mother and infant.Future studies should be conducted, especially in resource-constrained settings where amniotomy is still used as a means of induction of labour, in order to evaluate the routine use of antibiotics at amniotomy in these settings. Future research in this area should include important maternal and infant outcomes listed in this review and also consider cost effectiveness and side effects of antibiotic use, including the emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains.

Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre-existing diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood glucose is recommended as a key component of the management plan for diabetes therapy during pregnancy. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of various techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 August 2013), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including self blood glucose monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (Type 1 or Type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. Quasi-RCTs and RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: The search of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register identified 21 trial reports. Following application of eligibility criteria, nine trials were included in this review. The included trials involved a total of 506 women (436 women with Type 1 diabetes and 70 women with Type 2 diabetes). All trials originated from European countries and the USA. None of the studies included women with gestational diabetes. Five of the nine included studies were at moderate risk of bias and four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias. Primary outcomes were maternal glycaemic control (fasting blood glucose and HbA1c) and infant birthweight or macrosomia.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. The following comparisons were included in the review: (1) self-monitoring versus standard care, (2) self-monitoring versus hospitalisation, (3) pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring, (4) automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system, (5) CGM versus intermittent monitoring and (6) constant CGM versus intermittent CGM.Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any significant advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary outcomes (maternal glycaemic control and infant birthweight) and secondary outcomes such as gestational age at birth or preterm birth, frequency of neonatal hypoglycaemia, death of baby including stillbirth, and neonatal intensive care admission. Primary outcome data on macrosomia were reported by one trial but at a different cut-off value than that pre-specified for the review. Secondary outcomes such as shoulder dystocia, major and minor anomalies were not reported by any of the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.

Case Report : Hermansky Pudlak Syndrome (Presenting as late onset heavy Menstrual Bleeding).

Inherited bleeding disorders contribute significantly to the incidence and prevalence of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding (HMB), and contrary to popular belief can present any time during the reproductive years of a woman's life. The following case exemplifies this and is being presented as part of a rare syndrome. The incidence of this syndrome in the general population ranges from 1:500,000 to 1:1000, 000. Besides being rare the presentation was quite uncommon as majority of these cases present with pulmonary fibrosis.

Interventions for prevention and treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis in women with HIV infection.

BACKGROUND: Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is one of the most common fungal infections that recur frequently in HIV infected women. Symptoms of VVC are pruritis, discomfort, dyspareunia, and dysuria. Vulval infection presents as a morbiliform rash that may extend to the thighs. Vaginal infection is associated with white discharge, and plaques are seen on erythematous vaginal walls.Even though rarely or never resulting in systemic fungal infection or mortality, left untreated these lesions contribute considerably to the morbidity associated with HIV infection. Prevention and treatment of this condition is an essential part of maintaining the quality of life for these individuals. OBJECTIVES: -To compare the efficacy of various antifungals given vaginally or orally for the treatment and prophylaxis of VVC in HIV-infected women and to evaluate the risks of the same. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search strategy was comprehensive, iterative and based on that of the HIV/AIDS Cochrane Review Group. The aim was to locate all relevant trials, irrespective of publication status or language. Electronic databases :CENTRAL,Medline, EMBASE, LILACS and CINAHL were searched for randomised controlled trials for the years 1980 to 1st October 2010. WHO ICTRP site and other relevant web sites were also searched for conference abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of palliative, preventative or curative therapy were considered. Participants were HIV positive women receiving one or more of the following:treatment / prophylaxis for VVC or HAART(Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the trials and extracted data. The quality of the evidence generated was graded using the GRADE PRO approach. MAIN RESULTS: Our search did not yield any trial investigating treatment of VVC in HIV positive women.Two trials dealing with prophylaxis were eligible for inclusion.One trial (n= 323) favoured the use of weekly Fluconazole as compared to placebo (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.97).The second trial with three arms of comparison;Clotrimazole,Lactobacillus and Placebo gave no definitive results in preventing an episode of VVC. Clotrimazole against placebo (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.22 to 1.09), Clotrimazole against lactobacillus (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.76) and lactobacillus against placebo (RR 0.54 ;95% CI 0.26 to 1.13). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practiceNo trials were found addressing treatment of VVC in HIV positive women.In comparison to placebo,Fluconazole was found to be an effective preventative intervention. However, the potential for resistant Candida organisms to develop might impact the feasibility of implementation.Direction of findings suggests that Clotrimazole and Lactobacillus improved the prophylactic outcomes when compared to placebo.Implications for research There is a need to evaluate drugs and drug regimens for VVC treatment and prophylaxis in HIV positive women through randomised clinical trials. Development of resistance to azoles remains under-studied and more work must be done in this area, so as to determine whether routine prophylaxis for VVC is at all needed or whether adequate ART would be sufficient to prevent recurrent VVC. The viral load in vaginal secretions with or without treatment or prophylaxis has not been studied, this is very relevant to the spread of HIV.