Childbirth Group Research Articles

Early additional food and fluids for healthy breastfed full-term infants.

Early additional food and fluids for healthy breastfed full-term infants.

Effect of restricted pacifier use in breastfeeding term infants for increasing duration of breastfeeding.

To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Concerns have been raised that offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast-milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding. To assess the effect of restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding. 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. We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review, but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.07, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, one study, 970 infants, moderate-quality evidence), and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02, one study, 970 infants). None of the included trials reported data on the other primary outcomes, i.e. duration of partial or exclusive breastfeeding, or secondary outcomes: breastfeeding difficulties (mastitis, cracked nipples, breast engorgement); infant's health (dental malocclusion, otitis media, oral candidiasis; sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)); maternal satisfaction and level of confidence in parenting. One study reported that avoidance of pacifiers had no effect on cry/fuss behavior at ages four, six, or nine weeks and also reported no effect on the risk of weaning before age three months, however the data were incomplete and so could not be included for analysis. Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. Evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.

Rooming-in for new mother and infant versus separate care for increasing the duration of breastfeeding.

Mother-infant proximity and interactions after birth and during the early postpartum period are important for breast-milk production and breastfeeding success. Rooming-in and separate care are both traditional practices. Rooming-in involves keeping the mother and the baby together in the same room after birth for the duration of hospitalisation, whereas separate care is keeping the baby in the hospital nursery and the baby is either brought to the mother for breastfeeding or she walks to the nursery. To assess the effect of mother-infant rooming-in versus separation on the duration of breastfeeding (exclusive and total duration of breastfeeding). We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of mother-infant rooming-in versus separate care after hospital birth or at home on the duration of breastfeeding, proportion of breastfeeding at six months and adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included one trial (involving 176 women) in this review. This trial included four groups with a factorial design. The factorial design took into account two factors, i.e. infant location in relation to the mother and the type of infant apparel. We combined three of the groups as the intervention (rooming-in) group and the fourth group acted as the control (separate care) and we analysed the results as a single pair-wise comparison. Primary outcomesThe primary outcome, duration of any breastfeeding, was reported by authors as median values because the distribution was found to be skewed. They reported the overall median duration of any breastfeeding to be four months, with no difference found between groups. Duration of exclusive breastfeeding and the proportion of infants being exclusively breastfed at six months of age was not reported in the trial. There was no difference found between the two groups in the proportion of infants receiving any breastfeeding at six months of age (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.39; one trial; 137 women; low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomesThe mean frequency of breastfeeds per day on day four postpartum for the rooming-in group was 8.3 (standard deviation (SD) 2.2), slightly higher than the separate care group, i.e. seven times per day. However, between-group comparison of this outcome was not appropriate since every infant in the separate care group was breastfed at a fixed schedule of seven times per day (SD = 0) resulting in no estimable comparison. The rate of exclusive breastfeeding on day four postpartum before discharge from hospital was significantly higher in the rooming-in group 86% (99 of 115) compared with separate care group, 45% (17 of 38), (RR 1.92; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.76; one trial, 153 women; low-quality evidence). None of our other pre-specified secondary outcomes were reported. We found little evidence to support or refute the practice of rooming-in versus mother-infant separation. Further well-designed RCTs to investigate full mother-infant rooming-in versus partial rooming-in or separate care including all important outcomes are needed.

Amnioinfusion for chorioamnionitis.

Amnioinfusion for chorioamnionitis.

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

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. To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups. 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. 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. There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses. 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 trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Dopamine agonists for preventing future miscarriage in women with idiopathic hyperprolactinemia and recurrent miscarriage history.

Hyperprolactinemia is the presence of abnormally high circulating levels of prolactin. Idopathic hyperprolactinemia is the term used when no cause of prolactin hypersecretion can be identified and it is causally related to the development of miscarriage in pregnant women, especially women who have a history of recurrent miscarriage. A possible mechanism is that high levels of prolactin affect the function of the ovaries, resulting in a luteal phase defect and miscarriage. A dopamine agonist is a compound with high efficacy in lowering prolactin levels and restoring gonadal function. To assess the effectiveness and safety of different types of dopamine agonists in preventing future miscarriage given to women with idiopathic hyperprolactinemia and a history of recurrent miscarriage. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in all languages examining the effect of dopamine agonists on preventing future miscarriage. Women who had idiopathic hyperprolactinemia with a history of recurrent miscarriages were eligible for inclusion in this review. Comparisons planned included: dopamine agonists alone versus placebo/no treatment; and dopamine agonists combined with other therapy versus other therapy alone. Two review authors independently assessed a single trial for inclusion, evaluated trial quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. One study (recruiting 48 women with idiopathic hyperprolactinemia) met our inclusion criteria; 46 women (42 pregnancies - 4/46 women did not conceive during the study period) were included in the analysis. The study compared the use of a dopamine agonist (bromocriptine, 2.5 mg to 5.0 mg/day until the end of the ninth week of gestation) versus a no-treatment control. The study was judged as being at a high risk of bias. It was not possible to carry out meta-analysis due to insufficient data.The study reported both of this review's primary outcomes of miscarriage and live birth. Results from this single study suggest that, compared to no treatment, oral bromocriptine was effective in preventing future miscarriage (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.87, 46 participants (low-quality evidence)) in women with idiopathic hyperprolactinemia. There was no clear difference with regard to the other primary outcome of live births (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.42, 46 participants (very low-quality evidence)).There was no difference with regard to this review's secondary outcome of conception (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.09, 46 participants (very low-quality evidence)) between the group of women who received dopamine (21 out of 24 women conceived) and women in the no-treatment group (21 out of 22 women conceived). The included study only reported the serum prolactin levels in pregnant women and therefore the data could not be analyzed in this review. No other secondary outcomes relevant to this review were reported; adverse effects for women (nausea, vomiting, headache, vertigo, fatigue, hypotension, arrhythmia, and psychotic symptoms) and infants (birth defects, low birthweight, and developmental disabilities) were not reported.We downgraded the quality of the evidence for risk of bias in the one trial contributing outcome data (no description of allocation concealment, lack of blinding and possible reporting bias) and for imprecision (all effect estimates were based on small sample size, miscarriage was based on few events, and the 95% CIs of live birth and conception cross the line of no effect). Currently, there is insufficient evidence (from a single randomized trial with a small sample size, and judged to be at high risk of bias) to evaluate the effectiveness of dopamine agonists for preventing future miscarriage in women with idiopathic hyperprolactinemia and a history of recurrent miscarriage. We assessed outcomes using GRADE methodology. Miscarriage was assessed as low quality due to risk of bias concerns in the one trial contributing data (no description of allocation concealment, lack of blinding and possible reporting bias) and to imprecision (effect estimates were based on small sample size and few events). Live births and conception were assessed as of very low quality due to the same risk of bias concerns in study design and to imprecision (with a wide 95% CI consistent with either benefit or harm), and a small sample size. There were no data relating to adverse effects of the intervention for either the mother or her baby.Futher high-quality research in this area is warranted. There is a need for well-designed, larger RCTs to confirm and extend the findings of the trial reviewed here. Many questions remain unanswered. Some important considerations for future research include, the need for well-designed RCTs with large sample sizes, and for those studies to consider important outcomes (including adverse effects for both the mother and her baby). Future studies should examine the effectiveness and safety of various dopamine agonists including bromocriptine, cabergoline and quinagolide.

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (single dose) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period.

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (single dose) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period.

Immediate versus deferred delivery of the preterm baby with suspected fetal compromise for improving outcomes.

Immediate versus deferred delivery of the preterm baby with suspected fetal compromise for improving outcomes.

Sealing procedures for preterm prelabour rupture of membranes

Preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes (PPROM) complicates approximately 2% of pregnancies and can be either spontaneous or iatrogenic in nature. Complications of PPROM include prematurity, chorioamnionitis, neonatal sepsis, limb position defects, respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary hypoplasia chronic lung disease, periventricular leukomalacia and intraventricular haemorrhage.A number of different sealing techniques have been employed which aim to restore a physical barrier against infection and encourage the re-accumulation of amniotic fluid. Routine use of sealants is currently not recommended due to a lack of sufficient evidence to support the safety and effectiveness of such interventions. To assess the effects of sealing techniques following PPROM against each other, or versus standard care (including no sealant), on maternal and neonatal outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different techniques for sealing preterm prelabour ruptured membranes. Cluster-randomised trials and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review. We planned to include abstracts when sufficient information was provided. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We included two studies (involving 141 women - with data from 124 women). We considered both studies as being at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible because the included studies examined different interventions (both in comparison with standard care) and reported on few, but different, outcomes. One study compared cervical adapter (mechanical sealing), and the other study examined an immunological membrane sealant. Neither of the included studies reported on this review's primary outcome of interest - perinatal mortality. Similarly, data were not reported for the majority of this review's secondary infant and maternal outcomes. Cervical adapter (mechanical sealing) versus standard care (one study, data from 35 participants)No data were reported for this review's primary outcome - perinatal mortality. Data were reported for few of this review's infant or maternal secondary outcomes.There was no clear difference between the mechanical sealing group and the standard care control in relation to the incidence of neonatal sepsis (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 5.09 (very low-quality evidence)) or chorioamnionitis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.28 to 5.09 (very low-quality evidence)). Oral immunological membrane sealant versus standard care (one study, data from 94 participants)No data were available for perinatal mortality (this review's primary outcome) or for the majority of this review's infant and maternal secondary outcomes. Compared to standard care, the immunological membrane sealant was associated with a reduction in preterm birth less than 37 weeks (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.68 (very low-quality evidence)) and a reduction in neonatal death (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.75 (very low-quality evidence)). However, there was no clear difference between groups in terms of neonatal sepsis (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.46 (very low-quality evidence)) or respiratory distress syndrome (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.46 (very low-quality evidence)). There is insufficient evidence to evaluate sealing procedures for PPROM. There were no data relating to this review's primary outcome (perinatal mortality) and the majority of our infant and maternal secondary outcomes were not reported in the two included studies.There was limited evidence to suggest that an immunological membrane sealant was associated with a reduction in preterm birth at less than 37 weeks and neonatal death, but these results should be interpreted with caution as this is based on one small study, with a high risk of bias, and the intervention has not been tested in other studies.Although midtrimester PPROM is not a rare occurrence, there are only a small amount of published data addressing the benefits and risks of sealing procedures. Most of these studies are retrospective and cohort based and could therefore not be included in our data-analysis.This review highlights the paucity of prospective randomised trials in this area. Current evidence provides limited information both on effectiveness and safety for the interventions described. Given the paucity of high-quality data, we recommend that future research efforts focus on the conduct of randomised trials assessing the effect of promising interventions that have been only evaluated to date in cohort studies (e.g. amniopatch). Future trials should address outcomes including perinatal mortality, preterm birth, neonatal death, respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal sepsis and developmental delay. They should also evaluate maternal outcomes including sepsis, mode of delivery, length of hospital stay and emotional well-being.

Is underage abortion associated with adverse outcomes in early adulthood? A longitudinal birth cohort study up to 25 years of age.

Is underage abortion associated with adverse socioeconomic and health outcomes in early adulthood when compared with underage delivery? Underage abortion was not found to be associated with mental health problems in early adulthood, and socioeconomic outcomes were better among those who experienced abortion compared with those who gave birth. Teenage motherhood has been linked with numerous adverse outcomes in later life, including low educational levels and poor physical and mental health. Whether abortion at a young age predisposes to similar consequences is not clear. This nationwide, retrospective cohort study from Finland, included all women born in 1987 (n = 29 041) and followed until 2012. We analysed socioeconomic, psychiatric and risk-taking-related health outcomes up to 25 years of age after underage (<18 years) abortion (n = 1041, 3.6%) and after childbirth (n = 394, 1.4%). Before and after conception analyses within the study groups were performed to further examine the association between abortion and adverse health outcomes. A group with no pregnancies up to 20 years of age (n = 25 312, 88.0%) served as an external reference group. We found no significant differences between the underage abortion and the childbirth group regarding risks of psychiatric disorders (adjusted odds ratio 0.96 [0.67-1.40]) or suffering from intentional or unintentional poisoning by medications or drugs (1.06 [0.57-1.98]). Compared with those who gave birth, girls who underwent abortion were less likely to achieve only a low educational level (0.41 [95% confidence interval 0.31-0.54]) or to be welfare-dependent (0.31 [0.22-0.45]), but more likely to suffer from injuries (1.51 [1.09-2.10]). Compared with the external control group, both pregnancy groups were disadvantaged already prior to the pregnancy. Psychiatric disorders and risk-taking-related health outcomes, including injury, were increased in the abortion group and in the childbirth group similarly on both sides of the pregnancy. The retrospective nature of the study remains a limitation. The identification of study subjects in order to collect additional data was not allowed for ethical reasons. Therefore further confounding factors, such as the intentionality of the pregnancy, could not be checked. Previous studies have found that abortion is not harmful to mental health in the majority of adult women. Our study adds to the current understanding in suggesting that this is also the case concerning underage girls. Furthermore, women with a history of underage abortion had better socioeconomic outcomes compared with those who gave birth. These findings can be generalized to settings of high-quality social and health-care services, where abortion is accessible and affordable to all citizens. Social and health-care professionals who care for and counsel underage girls facing unplanned pregnancy should acknowledge this information. This study was financially supported by the Finnish Cultural Foundation and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. The researchers are independent of funders and the funders had no role in the study design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The authors have no competing interests.

Treatments for breast engorgement during lactation.

Treatments for breast engorgement during lactation.

Routes of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section.

Post-caesarean section infection is a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for preventing infection after caesarean delivery. The route of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis should be effective, safe and convenient. Currently, there is a lack of synthesised evidence regarding the benefits and harms of different routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section. The aim of this review was to assess the benefits and harms of different routes of prophylactic antibiotics given for preventing infectious morbidity in women undergoing caesarean section. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two alternative routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section (both elective and emergency). Cross-over trials and quasi-RCTs were not eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies. These steps were checked by a third review author. We included 10 studies (1354 women). The risk of bias was unclear or high in most of the included studies.All of the included trials involved women undergoing caesarean section whether elective or non-elective. Intravenous antibiotics versus antibiotic irrigation (nine studies, 1274 women) Nine studies (1274 women) compared the administration of intravenous antibiotics with antibiotic irrigation. There were no clear differences between groups in terms of this review's maternal primary outcomes: endometritis (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.29; eight studies (966 women) (low-quality evidence)); wound infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.43; seven studies (859 women) (very low-quality evidence)). The outcome of infant sepsis was not reported in the included studies.In terms of this review's maternal secondary outcomes, there were no clear differences between intravenous antibiotic or irrigation antibiotic groups in terms of postpartum febrile morbidity (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.60; three studies (264 women) (very low-quality evidence)); or urinary tract infection (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.15; five studies (660 women) (very low-quality evidence)). In terms of adverse effects of the treatment on the women, no drug allergic reactions were reported in three studies (284 women) (very low-quality evidence), and there were no cases of serious infectious complications reported (very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in terms of maternal length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.28 days, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.79 days, (random-effects analysis), four studies (512 women). No data were reported for the number of women readmitted to hospital. For the baby, there were no data reported in relation to oral thrush, infant length of hospital stay or immediate adverse effects of the antibiotics on the infant. Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis versus oral antibiotic prophylaxis (one study, 80 women) One study (80 women) compared an intravenous versus an oral route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics, but did not report any of this review's primary or secondary outcomes. There was no clear difference between irrigation and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the risk of post-caesarean endometritis. For other outcomes, there is insufficient evidence regarding which route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics is most effective at preventing post-caesarean infections. The quality of evidence was very low to low, mainly due to limitations in study design and imprecision. Furthermore, most of the included studies were underpowered (small sample sizes with few events). Therefore, we advise caution in the interpretation and generalisability of the results.For future research, there is a need for well-designed, properly-conducted, and clearly-reported RCTs. Such studies should evaluate the more recently available antibiotics, elaborating on the various available routes of administration, and exploring potential neonatal side effects of such interventions.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections of insulin for pregnant women with diabetes.

Diabetes causes a rise in blood glucose above normal physiological levels causing damage to many systems including the cardiovascular and renal systems. Pregnancy causes a physiological reduction in insulin action; for those women who have pre-gestational diabetes, this results in an increasing insulin requirement. There are several methods of administering insulin. Conventionally, insulin has been administered subcutaneously, formally referred to as intensive conventional treatment, but now more usually referred to as multiple daily injections (MDI). An alternative insulin administration method is the continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump (CSII).To compare continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with MDI of insulin for pregnant women with diabetes.We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2006).Randomised controlled trials comparing CSII with MDI for pregnant women with diabetes.Three authors independently assessed studies and extracted data.Two studies (60 women with 61 pregnancies) were included. There was a significant increase in mean birthweight associated with CSII as opposed to MDI (weighted mean difference 220.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.09 to 443.20; two trials, 61 participants). However, taking into consideration the lack of significant difference in rate of macrosomia (birthweight greater than 4000 g) (relative risk (RR) 3.20, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.62; two trials, 61 participants), this is not viewed by the authors as clinically significant. No significant differences were found in any other outcomes measured, which may reflect the small number of trials suitable for meta-analysis and the small number of participants in the included studies. No significant differences were found in perinatal mortality (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 19.91), fetal anomaly (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.54), maternal hypoglycaemia (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 25.87) or maternal hyperglycaemia (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 125.44).There is a dearth of robust evidence to support the use of one particular form of insulin administration over another for pregnant women with diabetes. The data are limited because of the small number of trials appropriate for meta-analysis, small study sample size and questionable generalisability of the trial population. Conclusions cannot be made from the data available and therefore a robust randomised trial is needed. The trial should be adequately powered to assess the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in terms of appropriate outcomes for women with diabetes.

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

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. 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. 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. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), contacted trial authors and searched reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised trials of induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia. 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. 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. 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.

Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.

This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain management for women in labour, and share a generic protocol. We examined the current evidence regarding the use of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. This review updates the findings regarding hypnosis from an earlier review of complementary and alternative therapies for pain management in labour into a stand-alone review.To examine the effectiveness and safety of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 January 2012) and the reference lists of primary studies and review articles.Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing preparation for labour using hypnosis and/or use of hypnosis during labour, with or without concurrent use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief methods versus placebo, no treatment or any analgesic drug or technique.Two assessors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Where possible we contacted study authors seeking additional information about data and methodology.We included seven trials randomising a total of 1213 women. All but one of the trials were at moderate to high risk of bias. Although six of the seven trials assessed antenatal hypnotherapy, there were considerable differences between these trials in timing and technique. One trial provided hypnotherapy during labour. No significant differences between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control group were found for the primary outcomes: use of pharmacological pain relief (average risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.01, six studies, 1032 women), spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.96, four studies, 472 women) or satisfaction with pain relief (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20, one study, 264 women). There was significant statistical heterogeneity in the data for use of pharmacological pain relief and spontaneous vaginal birth. The primary outcome of sense of coping with labour was reported in two studies as showing no beneficial effect (no usable data available for this review). For secondary outcomes, no significant differences were identified between women in the hypnosis group and women in the control group for most outcomes where data were available. For example, there was no significant difference for satisfaction with the childbirth experience (average RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59, two studies, 370 women), admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.89, two studies, 347 women) or breastfeeding at discharge from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03, one study, 304 women). There was some evidence of benefits for women in the hypnosis group compared with the control group for pain intensity, length of labour and maternal hospital stay, although these findings were based on single studies with small numbers of women. Pain intensity was found to be lower for women in the hypnosis group than those in the control group in one trial of 60 women (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.37). The same study found that the average length of labour from 5 cm dilation to birth (minutes) was significantly shorter for women in the hypnosis group (mean difference -165.20, 95% CI -223.53 to -106.87, one study, 60 women). Another study found that a smaller proportion of women in the hypnosis group stayed in hospital for more than two days after the birth compared with women in the control group (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83, one study, 42 women).There are still only a small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Although the intervention shows some promise, further research is needed before recommendations can be made regarding its clinical usefulness for pain management in maternity care.

Interventions for treating hyperemesis gravidarum.

Interventions for treating hyperemesis gravidarum.

Vitamin supplementation for preventing miscarriage.

Vitamin supplementation for preventing miscarriage.

Different intensities of glycaemic control for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

The optimal glycaemic control target in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes is unclear, although there is a clear link between high glucose concentrations and adverse birth outcomes. To assess the effects of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016) and planned to search reference lists of retrieved studies. We included randomised controlled trials comparing different glycaemic control targets in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted data extraction, assessed risk of bias and checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included three trials, all in women with type 1 diabetes (223 women and babies). All three trials were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, unclear methods of randomisation and selective reporting of outcomes. Two trials compared very tight (3.33 to 5.0 mmol/L fasting blood glucose (FBG)) with tight-moderate (4.45 to 6.38 mmol/L) glycaemic control targets, with one trial of 22 babies reporting no perinatal deaths orserious perinatal morbidity (evidence graded low for both outcomes). In the same trial, there were two congenital anomalies in the very tight, and none in the tight-moderate group, with no significant differences in caesarean section between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.73; evidence graded very low). In these two trials, glycaemic control was not significantly different between the very tight and tight-moderate groups by the third trimester, although one trial of 22 women found significantly less maternal hypoglycaemia in the tight-moderate group.In a trial of 60 women and babies comparing tight (≤ 5.6 mmol/L FBG); moderate (5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L); and loose (6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L) glycaemic control targets, there were two neonatal deaths in the loose and none in the tight or moderate groups (evidence graded very low). There were significantly fewer women with pre-eclampsia (evidence graded low), fewer caesarean sections (evidence graded low) and fewer babies with birthweights greater than 90th centile (evidence graded low) in the combined tight-moderate compared with the loose group.The quality of the evidence was graded low or very low for important outcomes, because of design limitations to the studies, the small numbers of women included, and wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. Many of the important outcomes were not reported in these studies. In a very limited body of evidence, few differences in outcomes were seen between very tight and tight-moderate glycaemic control targets in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 diabetes, including actual glycaemic control achieved. There is evidence of harm (increased pre-eclampsia, caesareans and birthweights greater than 90th centile) for 'loose' control (FBG above 7 mmol/L). Future trials comparing interventions, rather than glycaemic control targets, may be more feasible. Trials in pregnant women with pre-existing type 2 diabetes are required.

Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care. To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (25 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. 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. We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e. regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death using the GRADE methodology: all primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = eight; high quality) and less all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = four), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss less than 24 weeks and neonatal death (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = seven), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = three) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = seven). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss equal to/after 24 weeks and neonatal death, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models. This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and all fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.

Oxytocin for preventing postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) in non-facility birth settings.

Oxytocin for preventing postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) in non-facility birth settings.