Search

BACKGROUND: Surgical options for treating stress urinary incontinence (SUI) are usually explored after conservative interventions have failed. Surgeries fall into two categories: traditional techniques (open surgery) and minimally invasive procedures, such as laparoscopic procedures, midurethral sling and injections with urethral bulking agents. Postsurgery infections, such as infections of the surgical site or urinary tract, are common complications. To minimise the risk of postoperative bacterial infections, prophylactic antibiotics may be given before or during surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotics for preventing infection following continence surgery in women with stress urinary incontinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In‐Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP; and handsearched journals and conference proceedings to 18 March 2021. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs assessing prophylactic antibiotics in women undergoing continence surgery to treat SUI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected potentially eligible trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and as mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one quasi‐RCT and two RCTs, involving a total of 390 women. One study performed retropubic urethropexy surgery requiring a transverse suprapubic incision, while the other two studies performed midurethral sling surgery. It should be noted that none of the included studies clearly specified the timing of outcome assessment. We are very uncertain whether prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin) have an effect on surgical site infections (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.03 to 12.35; 2 studies, 85 women; very low‐certainty evidence) or urinary tract infections or bacteriuria (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.05 to 13.24; 2 studies, 85 women; very low‐certainty evidence). The effect of prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin) on febrile morbidity is also uncertain (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.29; 2 studies, 85 women; very low‐certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin) have any effect on mesh exposure (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.61; 1 study, 59 women; very low‐certainty evidence). None of the three included studies described the assessment of adverse events from antibiotic use, sepsis or bacteraemia in their reports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only limited data are available from the three included studies and, overall, the certainty of evidence was very low. Moreover, the three included studies evaluated different surgical procedures and dosages of antibiotic administration. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection following anti‐incontinence surgery. In addition, there were no data regarding adverse effects of prophylactic antibiotics. More RCTs are required.

Background As a retained placenta is a potential life-threatening obstetrical complication, effective and timely management is important. The estimated mortality rates from a retained placenta in developing countries range from 3% to 9%. One possible factor contributing to the high mortality rates is a delay in initiating manual removal of the placenta. Effective anaesthesia or analgesia during this procedure will provide adequate uterine relaxation and pain control, enabling it to be carried out effectively. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of general, regional, and local anaesthesia or analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta. Search methods We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 30 September 2019, and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster-randomised trials that compared different methods of preoperative or intraoperative anaesthetic or analgesic, administered during the manual removal of a retained placenta. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the study reports for inclusion, and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We followed standard Cochrane methodology. Main results We identified only one randomised controlled trial (N = 30 women) that evaluated the effect of paracervical block on women undergoing manual removal of a retained placenta compared with intravenous pethidine and diazepam. The study was conducted in a hospital in Papua New Guinea. The study was at high risk of bias of performance bias and detection bias, low risk of attrition bias, and an unclear risk of selection bias, reporting bias, and other bias. The included study did not measure this review's primary outcomes of pain intensity and adverse events. The study reported that there were no women, in either group, who experienced an estimated postpartum blood loss of more than 500 mL. We are uncertain about the providers' satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 3.16, one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). We are also uncertain about the women's satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.37; one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). The included study did not report on any of our other outcomes of interest. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence from one small study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anaesthesia or analgesia during the manual removal of a retained placenta. The quality of the available evidence was very low. We downgraded based on issues of limitations in study design (risk of bias) and imprecision (single study with small sample size, few or no events, and wide confidence intervals). There is a need for well-designed, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of anaesthesia and analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta. These studies could report on the important outcomes outlined in this review.

Background Functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) is a minimally invasive technique that is used to treat chronic sinusitis. Small bleeding areas can reduce operative visibility and result in destruction of surrounding structures. Deliberate hypotension (lowering the mean arterial blood pressure to between 50 and 65 mm Hg in normotensive patients) using a range of pharmacological agents during general anaesthesia reduces blood loss in many operations. This review was originally published in 2013 and updated in February 2016. Objectives We aimed to compare the use of propofol versus other techniques for achieving deliberate intraoperative hypotension during FESS procedures with regard to blood loss and operative conditions. Search methods We searched the following databases in the updated review: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2016), Embase (1980 to February 2016), LILACS (1982 to February 2016), and ISI Web of Science (1946 to February 2016). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings and contacted the authors of included trials. Selection criteria We sought all randomized controlled trials comparing propofol with other techniques for deliberate hypotension during FESS with regard to blood loss and operative conditions in both adults and children. Our primary outcome was total blood loss (TBL). Other outcomes included surgical field quality, operation time, mortality within 24 hours, complications, and failure to reach target blood pressure. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted details of trial methodology and outcome data from the reports of all trials considered eligible for inclusion. We made all analyses on an intention-to-treat basis where possible. When I2 was less than 40% and the P value from the Chi2 test was higher than 0.10, we pooled data using the fixed-effect model. Otherwise, we pooled data using the random-effects model. Main results We found no new studies. This updated review therefore includes four studies with 278 participants. Most analyses were based on data from few participants and low-quality evidence, so our results should be interpreted with caution. Deliberate hypotension with propofol did not decrease TBL (millilitres) when compared with inhalation anaesthetics in either children (1 study; 70 participants; very low-quality evidence), or adults (1 study; 88 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Propofol improved the quality of the surgical field by less than one category on a scale from 0 (no bleeding) to 5 (severe bleeding) (mean difference -0.64, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.37; 4 studies; 277 participants; low-quality evidence), but no difference in operation time was reported (3 studies; 214 participants; low-quality evidence). Failure to lower blood pressure to target was less common in the propofol group (risk ratio of failure with propofol 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.66; 1 study; 88 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Authors' conclusions Using propofol to achieve deliberate hypotension probably improves the surgical field, but the effect is small. Deliberate hypotension with propofol did not decrease TBL and the operation time. However, due to the very low quality of the evidence, this conclusion is not definitive. Randomized controlled trials with good-quality methodology and large sample size are required to investigate the effectiveness of deliberate hypotension with propofol for FESS.

Background Ovarian cancer is the third most common gynaecological cancer worldwide, with an age-standardised incidence rate of 6.1 per 10,000 women. Standard therapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) includes a combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Cytoreductive surgery aims to remove as much of the visible tumour as possible. As extensive intraperitoneal metastases are typical of advanced EOC, cytoreductive surgery is usually an extensive procedure with the risk of excessive bleeding. Tranexamic acid given perioperatively is effective in reducing blood loss and allogeneic blood transfusion requirements in a variety of surgical settings. Therefore, tranexamic acid seems to be a promising agent for minimising blood loss and the need for blood transfusion among women with advanced EOC undergoing cytoreductive surgery. Objectives To assess the effects of tranexamic acid for reducing blood loss associated with cytoreductive surgery in women with advanced EOC (stage III to IV). Search methods We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancers Trial Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 5, 2015), MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference proceedings to May 2015. We also checked registers of clinical trials, citation lists of included studies, key textbooks and previous systematic reviews for potentially relevant studies. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tranexamic acid given during surgery versus placebo or no treatment, in adult women diagnosed with advanced EOC. Data collection and analysis Two review authors (CK, AS) independently selected potentially relevant trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, compared results and resolved disagreements by discussion. Main results We found only one study that met our inclusion criteria. This was a randomised double blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a single dose of intravenous tranexamic acid (15 mg/kg body weight) versus placebo, given immediately before surgery for reducing blood loss and the need for red blood cell transfusion. The mean total estimated blood loss was 668.34 mL and 916.93 mL for participants assigned to tranexamic acid and placebo groups, respectively. The mean difference (MD) of total estimated blood loss between the groups did not show a clinically important effect (MD − 248.59 mL; 95% confidence interval (CI) − 550.9 to 53.79; one study, 100 participants; moderate quality evidence). The mean number of transfused units of blood components was not different between the two groups (low quality evidence). There were no noted differences in the incidence of reoperation, readmission or thromboembolic events (very low quality evidence). We considered the methodology of the included study to be at low risk of selection, detection, and reporting biases. However, we were concerned about an imbalance of some baseline characteristics between the groups, and as there was no protocol for blood transfusion, the rate of blood transfusion may vary depending on the practice of each participating hospital. Authors' conclusions Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of tranexamic acid for reducing blood loss in women undergoing cytoreductive surgery for advanced EOC, as only limited data are available from a single, low quality RCT at low overall risk of bias.

Background Constipation is a common symptom experienced during pregnancy. It has a range of consequences from reduced quality of life and perception of physical health to haemorrhoids. An understanding of the effectiveness and safety of treatments for constipation in pregnancy is important for the clinician managing pregnant women. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria We considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs, evaluating interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for constipation in pregnancy. Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Trials published in abstract form only (without full text publication) were not eligible for inclusion. We compared one intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) against another intervention, placebo or no treatment. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Main results Four studies were included, but only two studies with a total of 180 women contributed data to this review. It was not clear whether they were RCTs or quasi-RCTs because the sequence generation was unclear. We classified the overall risk of bias of three studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. No meta-analyses were carried out due to insufficient data. There were no cluster-RCTs identified for inclusion. Comparisons were available for stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives, and fibre supplementation versus no intervention. There were no data available for any other comparisons. During the review process we found that studies reported changes in symptoms in different ways. To capture all data available, we added a new primary outcome (improvement in constipation) - this new outcome was not prespecified in our published protocol. Stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives No data were identified for any of this review's prespecified primary outcomes: pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools. Compared to bulk-forming laxatives, pregnant women who received stimulant laxatives (Senokot or Normax) had an improvement in constipation (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence), but also had more abdominal discomfort (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.73; 140 women, one study, low quality of evidence), and a borderline difference in diarrhoea (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). In addition, there was no clear difference in women's satisfaction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). One of the stimulant laxatives, Normax (dioctyl sodium sulphosuccinate and dihydroxy anthraquinone) is no longer used for the treatment of constipation in pregnant women (and the package information advises that it should not be used during pregnancy or breastfeeding). We therefore carried out a non-prespecified sensitivity analysis with the data for Senokot and Normax presented separately. Results for Senokot and Normax were very similar, thus results for the individual drugs largely reflected findings for the combined analysis, although when individual drugs were compared with bulk-forming laxatives there was no longer a clear difference between groups in terms of abdominal discomfort and diarrhoea. No usable data were identified for any of this review's secondary outcomes: quality of life; dehydration; electrolyte imbalance; acute allergic reaction; or asthma. Fibre supplementation versus no intervention Pregnant women who received fibre supplementation had a higher frequency of stools compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) 2.24 times per week, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.52; 40 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). Fibre supplementation was associated with improved stool consistency as defined by trialists (hard stool decreased by 11% to 14%, normal stool increased by 5% to 10%, and loose stool increased by 0% to 6%). No usable data were reported for either the primary outcomes of pain on defecation and improvement in constipation or any of this review's secondary outcomes as listed above. Quality Five outcomes were assessed with the GRADE software: improvement in constipation, frequency of stools, abdominal discomfort, diarrhoea and women's satisfaction. These were assessed to be of moderate quality except for abdominal discomfort which was assessed to be of low quality. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution. There were no data available for evaluation of pain on defecation or consistency of stools. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy, due to limited data (few studies with small sample size and no meta-analyses). Compared with bulk-forming laxatives, stimulant laxatives appear to be more effective in improvement of constipation (moderate quality evidence), but are accompanied by an increase in diarrhoea (moderate quality evidence) and abdominal discomfort (low quality evidence) and no difference in women's satisfaction (moderate quality evidence). Additionally, fibre supplementation may increase frequency of stools compared with no intervention (moderate quality evidence), although these results were of moderate risk of bias. There were no data for a comparison of other types of interventions, such as osmotic laxatives, stool softeners, lubricant laxatives and enemas and suppositories. More RCTs evaluating interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy are needed. These should cover different settings and evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions (including fibre, osmotic, and stimulant laxatives) on improvement in constipation, pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.

Maternal nutrition during pregnancy is known to have an effect on fetal growth and development. It is recommended that women increase their calcium intake during pregnancy and lactation, although the recommended dosage varies among professionals. Currently, there is no consensus on the role of routine calcium supplementation for pregnant women other than for preventing or treating hypertension.To determine the effect of calcium supplementation on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes (other than for preventing or treating hypertension) as well as any possible side effects.We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30th September 2014).We considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women who received calcium supplementation versus placebo or no treatment. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion.Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, but only 23 studies contributed data to the review. These 23 trials recruited 18,587 women, with 17,842 women included in final analyses. There were no statistically significant differences between women who received calcium supplementation and those who did not in terms of reducing preterm births less than 37 weeks' gestation (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.05; 13 studies, 16,139 women; random-effects model) or less than 34 weeks' gestation (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.36; four trials, 5669). Most studies were of low risk of bias. We conducted sensitivity analysis for the outcome of preterm birth less than 37 weeks by removing two trials with unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment; the results then favoured treatment with calcium supplementation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.99; 11 trials, 15,379 women). There was no significant difference in infant low birthweight between the two treatment groups (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; six trials, 14,162 infants; random-effects model). However, when compared to the control group, women in the calcium supplementation group gave birth to slightly heavier birthweight infants (mean difference 56.40, 95% CI 13.55 to 99.25; 21 trials, 9202 women; random-effects model).Three outcomes were chosen for assessment with the GRADE software: preterm birth less than 37 weeks; preterm birth less than 34 weeks; and low birthweight less than 2500 g. Evidence for these outcomes was assessed as of moderate quality.This review indicates that there are no clear additional benefits to calcium supplementation in prevention of preterm birth or low infant birthweight. While there was a statistically significant difference of 56 g identified in mean infant birthweight, there was significant heterogeneity identified, and the clinical significance of this difference is uncertain.

Background Genital tract infection is associated with preterm birth (before 37 weeks' gestation). Screening for infections during pregnancy may therefore reduce the numbers of babies being born prematurely. However, screening for infections may have some adverse effects, such as increased antibiotic drug resistance and increased cost of treatment. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of antenatal lower genital tract infection screening and treatment programs for reducing preterm birth and subsequent morbidity. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 7) and reference lists of retrieved reports. Selection criteria We included all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials in any language that evaluated any described methods of antenatal lower genital tract infection screening compared with no screening. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. Main results One study (4155 women at less than 20 weeks' gestation) met the inclusion criteria. The intervention group (2058 women) received infection screening and treatment for bacterial vaginosis, trichomonas vaginalis and candidiasis; the control group (2097 women) also received screening, but the results of the screening program were not revealed and women received routine antenatal care. The rate of preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation was significantly lower in the intervention group (3% versus 5% in the control group) with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.75; the evidence for this outcome was graded as of moderate quality). The incidence of preterm birth for infants with a weight equal to or below 2500 g (low birthweight) and infants with a weight equal to or below 1500 g (very low birthweight) were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66 and RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75, respectively; both graded as moderate quality evidence). Based on a subset of costs for preterm births of < 1900 g, the authors reported that for each of those preterm births averted, EUR 60,262 would be saved. Authors' conclusions There is evidence from one trial that infection screening and treatment programs for pregnant women before 20 weeks' gestation reduce preterm birth and preterm low birthweight. Infection screening and treatment programs are associated with cost savings when used for the prevention of preterm birth. Future trials should evaluate the effects of different types of infection screening programs.

Background Radial head fracture is the most common fracture of the elbow. It usually results from a fall onto an outstretched arm. In 1954, Mason classified these fractures into type 1 (undisplaced), type 2 (simple displaced), and type 3 (comminuted fractures). Aspiration of the elbow joint aims to relieve pressure in the elbow joint and has been used as an initial treatment option for radial head fractures. However, it is an invasive technique with the potential for complications such as infection and injury to nerves and vessels. Objectives To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of elbow joint aspiration for treating radial head fracture in adults. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (14 April 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (14 April 2014), MEDLINE (1946 to April Week 1 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to 2014 Week 15), trial registries, bibliographies and conference proceedings. Selection criteria Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing aspiration versus no aspiration for treating radial head fractures in adults. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected articles, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Where appropriate, we pooled results of comparable studies using fixed-effect meta-analysis. Main results We included two trials that involved 126 participants but provided results for only 108 participants. Most participants were adults, typically over 30 years of age. Both trials were at high risk of selection, performance, detection and reporting bias. Reflecting this high risk of bias, we downgraded the quality of evidence two levels for study limitations and a further level for imprecision. Thus we judged the evidence for all outcomes to be 'very low' quality, meaning that we are very uncertain about these estimates. One trial included participants with Mason type 1, 2 or 3 radial head fractures and also a few cases of traumatic elbow hemarthrosis without fracture. The other trial included participants with Mason type 1 and 2 fractures. All participants were managed non-surgically. Neither trial reported functional outcome based on validated patient-reported outcome measures of function or pain using validated measures such as a visual analogue scale. Very low quality evidence (108 participants, two trials) indicates little difference between aspiration and no aspiration in impaired function (unable to carry heavy loads; discomfort when carrying loads) at 12 months (9/51 in aspiration group versus 7/57 in the no aspiration group; risk ratio 1.43 favouring no aspiration, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 3.58). Very low quality evidence (two trials) suggests a beneficial effect of aspiration on pain relief immediately after aspiration. Very low quality evidence (one trial, 28 participants) shows less pain after aspiration at three weeks, but it is unclear whether this applies subsequently. Neither trial reported on adverse events (for example, nerve and vascular injuries; deep or superficial infection) from the procedure, but aspiration was reported as being unsuccessful in three participants (7.9%) in one trial. Very low quality evidence indicates little difference in range of motion (based on elbow extension) between the two groups at six weeks (28 participants, one trial) or 12 months (108 participants, two trials). The report of adverse events was incomplete, but one trial (80 participants) reported the absence of three specific complications: myositis ossificans, joint instability or late displacement of the fracture. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of joint aspiration for the initial treatment of radial head fracture in terms of function, pain and range of motion or to determine the safety of the procedure. An examination of current aspiration use, the prospective collection of adverse events and consultation with patients as to their preferences and values would be helpful in guiding decisions about the future design of a multicentre randomised trial aiming to obtain definitive evidence on the use of aspiration for treating radial head fractures.

Background Chorioamnionitis is more likely to occur when meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) is present. Meconium may enhance the growth of bacteria in amniotic fluid by serving as a growth factor, inhibiting bacteriostatic properties of amniotic fluid. Many adverse neonatal outcomes related to MSAF result from meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). MSAF is associated with both maternal and newborn infections. Antibiotics may be an effective option to reduce such morbidity. Objectives The objective of this review is to assess the efficacy and side effects of prophylactic antibiotics for MSAF during labour in preventing maternal and neonatal infections. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (30 September 2014). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic antibiotics with placebo or no treatment during labour for women with MSAF. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Main results We included two studies with 362 pregnant women. Both studies compared ampicillin-sulbactam (N = 183) versus normal saline (N = 179) in pregnant women with MSAF. Prophylactic antibiotics appeared to have no statistically significant reduction in the incidence of neonatal sepsis (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.76), neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.78) and postpartum endometritis (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.38). However, there was a significant decrease in the risk of chorioamnionitis (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62). No serious adverse effects were reported. Drug resistance, duration of mechanical ventilation and duration of admission to NICU/hospital were not reported. Most of the domains for risk of bias were at low risk of bias for one study and at unclear risk of bias for the other study. The quality of the evidence using GRADE was low for neonatal sepsis, postpartum endometritis, and neonatal mortality and morbidity prior to discharge (Neonatal intensive care admissions) and of moderate quality for chorioamnionitis. Authors' conclusions Current evidence indicates that compared to placebo, antibiotics for MSAF in labour may reduce chorioamnionitis. There was no evidence that antibiotics could reduce postpartum endometritis, neonatal sepsis and NICU admission. This systematic review identifies the need for more well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to assess the effect of prophylactic antibiotics in the incidence of maternal and neonatal complications.

Background After successful inhibition of threatened preterm labour women are at high risk of recurrent preterm labour. Terbutaline pump maintenance therapy has been used to reduce adverse neonatal outcomes. This review replaces an earlier Cochrane review, published in 2002, which is no longer being updated by the team. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of terbutaline pump maintenance therapy after threatened preterm labour in reducing adverse neonatal outcomes. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials comparing terbutaline pump therapy with alternative therapy, placebo, or no therapy after arrest of threatened preterm labour. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and then extracted data as eligible for inclusion in qualitative and quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Main results Four studies were included with a total of 234 women randomised. The overall methodological quality of the included studies was mixed; two studies provided very little information on study methods, there was high sample attrition in one study and in three studies the risk of performance bias was high. We found no strong evidence that terbutaline maintenance therapy offered any advantages over saline placebo or oral terbutaline maintenance therapy in reducing adverse neonatal outcomes by prolonging pregnancy among women with arrested preterm labour. The mean difference (MD) for gestational age at birth was -0.14 weeks (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.66 to 1.38) for terbutaline pump therapy compared with saline placebo pump for two trials combined. One trial reported a risk ratio (RR) of 1.17 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.73) for preterm birth (less than 37 completed weeks) and a RR of 0.97 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.84) of very preterm birth (less than 34 completed weeks) for terbutaline pump compared with saline placebo pump. We found no evidence that terbutaline pump therapy was associated with statistically significant reductions in infant respiratory distress syndrome, or neonatal intensive care unit admission compared with placebo. Compared with oral terbutaline, we found no evidence that pump therapy increased the rate of therapy continuation, or reduced the rate of infant complications or maternal hospital re-admissions. One study suggested that pump therapy resulted in significantly increased weekly cost/woman, $580 versus $12.50 (P < 0.01). No data were reported on long-term infant outcomes. Authors' conclusions We found no evidence that terbutaline pump maintenance therapy decreased adverse neonatal outcomes. Taken together with the lack of evidence of benefit, its substantial expense and the lack of information on the safety of the therapy do not support its use in the management of arrested preterm labour. Future use should only be in the context of well-conducted, adequately powered randomised controlled trials.

Background Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common problem in children, for which amoxicillin, with or without clavulanate, is frequently prescribed as a treatment of choice. The conventional recommendation is either three or four daily doses. However, nowadays it is frequently prescribed as once or twice daily doses. If once or twice daily amoxicillin, with or without clavulanate, is as effective for acute otitis media as three or four times a day, it may be more convenient to give the medication once or twice a day to children and hence improve compliance. Objectives To compare the effectiveness of one or two daily doses with three or four daily doses of amoxicillin, with or without clavulanate, for the treatment of AOM in children; and to compare complication rates and adverse reactions. Search methods We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 2, MEDLINE (January 1950 to March week 1, 2013), EMBASE (1974 to March 2013) and the Science Citation Index (2001 to March 2013). Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of children aged 12 years or younger with AOM, diagnosed by acute ear pain (otalgia) and inflamed ear drum (confirmed by positive tympanocentesis or tympanogram of type B or C). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data on treatment outcomes from individual trials and assessed trial quality based on selection bias, performance bias and detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other biases. We defined the quality grading as low risk of bias, high risk of bias or unclear risk of bias. We summarised the results as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results We included five studies with 1601 children in the review. Pooled analysis demonstrated that the following outcomes were comparable between the two groups: clinical cure at the end of therapy (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.07); during therapy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.33) and at follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09); recurrent AOM (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.81); compliance rate (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.10) and overall adverse events (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.63). When we performed subgroup analysis separately for trials with amoxicillin only and amoxicillin/clavulanate only, it showed that all important outcomes were comparable between once or twice daily groups and the three times daily group. The risk of bias amongst the five included studies was as follows: for random sequence generation we graded two studies as low and three unclear risk of bias; for allocation concealment all studies were at unclear risk of bias; for blinding (performance and detection bias) we graded four as high and one as unclear risk of bias; for incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) we graded two low, two high and one as unclear risk of bias; for reporting bias four were at low and one at high risk; and for 'other' bias four were at low and one at unclear risk of bias. Authors' conclusions This review showed that the results of using once or twice daily doses of amoxicillin, with or without clavulanate, were comparable with three doses for the treatment of AOM.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen‐releasing intrauterine systems can reduce fibroid‐related symptoms. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of progestogens or progestogen‐releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases to July 2020. We also searched trials registers for ongoing and registered trials, and checked references of relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All identified published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of progestogens or progestogen‐releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review included four studies with 221 women with uterine fibroids. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded for serious risk of bias, due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Levonorgestrel‐releasing intrauterine device (LNG‐IUS) versus hysterectomy There was no information on the outcomes of interest, including adverse events. LNG‐IUS versus low dose combined oral contraceptive (COC) At 12 months, we are uncertain whether LNG‐IUS reduced the percentage of abnormal uterine bleeding, measured with the alkaline hematin test (mean difference (MD) 77.50%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.44 to 84.56; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low‐quality evidence), or the pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC; MD 34.50%, 95% CI 11.59 to 57.41; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low‐quality evidence); increased haemoglobin levels (MD 1.50 g/dL, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low‐quality evidence), or reduced fibroid size more than COC (MD 1.90%, 95% CI ‐12.24 to 16.04; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low‐quality evidence). The study did not measure adverse events. LNG‐IUS versus oral progestogen (norethisterone acetate (NETA)) Compared to NETA, we are uncertain whether LNG‐IUS reduced abnormal uterine bleeding more from baseline to six months (visual bleeding score; MD 23.75 points, 95% CI 1.26 to 46.24; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low‐quality evidence); increased the percentage of change in haemoglobin from baseline to three months (MD 4.53%, 95% CI 1.46 to 7.60; 1 RCT, 48 women; very low‐quality evidence), or from baseline to six months (MD 10.14%, 95% CI 5.57 to 14.71; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low‐quality evidence). The study did not measure fibroid size. Spotting (adverse event) was more likely to be reported by women with the LNG‐IUS (64.3%) than by those taking NETA (30%; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low‐quality evidence). Oral progestogen (dienogest, desogestrel) versus goserelin acetate Compared to goserelin acetate, we are uncertain whether abnormal uterine bleeding was reduced at 12 weeks with dienogest (PBAC; MD 216.00 points, 95% CI 149.35 to 282.65; 1 RCT, 14 women; very low‐quality evidence) or desogestrel (PBAC; MD 78.00 points, 95% CI 28.94 to 127.06; 1 RCT, 16 women; very low‐quality evidence). Vasomotor symptoms (adverse events, e.g. hot flashes) are only associated with goserelin acetate (55%), not with dienogest (1 RCT, 14 women; very low‐quality evidence) or with desogestrel (1 RCT, 16 women; very low‐quality evidence). The study did not report fibroid size. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because of very low‐quality evidence, we are uncertain whether the LNG‐IUS reduces abnormal uterine bleeding or increases haemoglobin levels in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids, compared to COC or norethisterone acetate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the LNG‐IUS reduces the size of uterine fibroids compared to COC. We are uncertain whether oral progestogens reduce abnormal uterine bleeding as effectively as goserelin acetate, but women reported fewer adverse events, such as hot flashes.

Background Arthroscopic reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture is a common orthopaedic procedure. One area of controversy is whether the method of double-bundle reconstruction, which represents the 'more anatomical' approach, gives improved outcomes compared with the more traditional single-bundle reconstruction. Objectives To assess the effects of double-bundle versus single-bundle for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adults with anterior cruciate ligament deficiency. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (to February 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to February week 3 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 8). We also searched trial registers, conference proceedings, and contacted authors where necessary. Selection criteria Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture in adults. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected articles, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. Where appropriate, results of comparable studies were pooled. Main results Seventeen trials were included. These involved 1433 people, mostly young physically active adults. All included trials had methodological weaknesses and were at risk of bias, notably selection bias from inadequate or lack of allocation concealment. Data for pooling individual outcomes were available for a maximum of nine trials and 54% of participants. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction in the subjective functional knee scores (subjective IKDC score, Tegner activity score, Lysholm score) in the intermediate (six months up to two years since surgery) or long term (two to five years from surgery). For example, the long term results for the Lysholm score (0 to 100: best score) were: mean difference (MD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.50 to 1.75; 5 trials, 263 participants). The only trial reporting on long term knee pain found no statistically significant differences between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in adverse effects and complications (e.g. infection reported by nine trials (7/285 versus 7/393; risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.81); graft failure reported by six trials (1/169 versus 4/185; RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.90). Limited data from five trials found a better return to pre-injury level of activity after double-bundle reconstruction (147/162 versus 208/255; RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25). At long term follow-up, there were statistically significant differences in favour of double-bundle reconstruction for IKDC knee examination (normal or nearly normal categories: 325/344 versus 386/429; RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08; 9 trials), knee stability measured with KT-1000 arthrometer (MD -0.74 mm, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.37; 5 trials, 363 participants) and rotational knee stability tested by the pivot-shift test (normal or nearly normal categories: 293/298 versus 382/415; RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; 9 trials). There were also statistically significant differences in favour of double-bundle reconstruction for newly occurring meniscal injury (9/240 versus 24/358; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92; 6 trials) and traumatic ACL rupture (1/120 versus 8/149; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.96; 3 trials). There were no statistically significant differences found between the two groups in range of motion (flexion and extension) deficits. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults, although there is limited evidence that double-bundle ACL reconstruction has some superior results in objective measurements of knee stability and protection against repeat ACL rupture or a new meniscal injury. High quality, large and appropriately reported randomised controlled trials of double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults appear justified.

Preventing preterm labour is the most important step in preventing preterm birth. Prostaglandins play an important role in labour and birth. Prostaglandin production can be obstructed by inhibition of the cyclo-oxygenase (COX) enzyme and this may arrest uterine contraction. A Cochrane review on COX inhibitors for the treatment of preterm labour found insufficient data to draw conclusions about its effectiveness.To assess the effectiveness and safety of COX inhibitors for preventing preterm labour in high-risk women.We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trial Register (30 June 2012).All published and unpublished randomised trials evaluating administration of any COX inhibitor for prevention of preterm labour in pregnant women at gestational age less than 36 weeks at risk of, but not experiencing, preterm labour. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Quasi-randomised trials and studies with cross-over designs were excluded.Two review authors (T Khanprakob and U Sangkomkamhang) independently assessed all potential studies for inclusion. Disagreement was resolved by discussion and, where necessary, by consultation with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.We included one randomised trial (involving 98 women) that evaluated the effectiveness of one type of COX inhibitor (rofecoxib) for preventing preterm birth. The included study did not report any data for one of our primary outcomes: preterm labour. Rofecoxib use was associated with an increased risk for preterm birth and preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM). Rofecoxib was associated with a higher risk of oligohydramnios and low fetal urine production but the effects were reversible after stopping treatment. There were no differences in the number of women who discontinued treatment before 32 weeks of gestation. There was no difference in neonatal morbidities and admission to neonatal intensive care unit. There were no maternal adverse effects or perinatal mortalities in either group.There was very little evidence about using COX inhibitors for preventing preterm labour. There are inadequate data to make any recommendation about using COX inhibitor in practice to prevent preterm labour. Future research should include follow-up of the babies to examine the short-term and long-term effects of COX inhibitors.

Background Breast milk is well recognised as the best food source for infants. The impact of antenatal breastfeeding (BF) education on the duration of BF has not been evaluated. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of antenatal breastfeeding (BF) education for increasing BF initiation and duration. Search methods We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register on 1 March 2016, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to 1 March 2016) and Scopus (January 1985 to 1 March 2016). We contacted experts and searched reference lists of retrieved articles. Selection criteria All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of formal antenatal BF education or comparing two different methods of formal antenatal BF education, on the duration of BF. We included RCTs that only included antenatal interventions and excluded those that combined antenatal and intrapartum or postpartum BF education components. Cluster-randomised trials were included in this review. Quasi-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion. Data collection and analysis We assessed all potential studies identified as a result of the search strategy. Two review authors extracted data from each included study using the agreed form and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results This review update includes 24 studies (10,056 women). Twenty studies (9789 women) contribute data to analyses. Most studies took place in high-income countries such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia. In the first five comparisons, we display the included trials according to type of intervention without pooling data. For the 'Summary of findings' we pooled data for a summary effect. Five included studies were cluster-randomised trials: all of these adjusted data and reported adjustments as odds ratios (OR). We have analysed the data using the generic inverse variance method and presented results as odds ratios, because we were unable to derive a cluster-adjusted risk ratio from the published cluster-trial. We acknowledge that the use of odds ratio prevents the pooling of these cluster trials in our main analyses. One method of BF education with standard (routine) care There were no group differences for duration of any BF in days or weeks. There was no evidence that interventions improved the proportion of women with any BF or exclusive BF at three or six months. Single trials of different interventions were unable to show that education improved initiation of BF, apart from one small trial at high risk of attrition bias. Many trial results marginally favoured the intervention but had wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. BF complications such as mastitis and other BF problems were similar in treatment arms in single trials reporting these outcomes. Multiple methods of BF education versus standard care For all trials included in this comparison we have presented the cluster-adjusted odds ratios as reported in trial publications. One three-arm study found the intervention of BF booklet plus video plus Lactation Consultant versus standard care improved the proportion of women exclusively BF at three months (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.40; women = 159) and marginally at six months (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.76; women = 175). For the same trial, an intervention arm without a lactation consultant but with the BF booklet and video did not have the same effect on proportion of women exclusively BF at three months (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.05; women = 159) or six months (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.70; women = 184). One study compared monthly BF sessions and weekly cell phone message versus standard care and reported improvements in the proportion of women exclusively BF at both three and six months (three months OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.95; women = 390; six months OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.11; women = 390). One study found monthly BF sessions and weekly cell phone messages improved initiation of BF over standard care (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.24; women = 380). BF education session versus standard care, pooled analyses for 'Summary of findings' (SoF) This comparison does not include cluster-randomised trials reporting adjusted odds ratios. We did not downgrade any evidence for trials' lack of blinding; no trial had adequate blinding of staff and participants. The SoF table presents risk ratios for all outcomes analysed. For proportion of women exclusively BF there is no evidence that antenatal BF education improved BF at three months (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25; women = 822; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence) or at six months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30; women = 2161; studies = 4; moderate quality evidence). For proportion of women with any BF there were no group differences in BF at three (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; women = 654; studies = 2; I² = 60%; low-quality evidence) or six months (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23; women = 1636; studies = 4; I² = 61%; high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that antenatal BF education could improve initiation of BF (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; women = 3505; studies = 8; I² = 69%; high-quality evidence). Where we downgraded evidence this was due to small sample size or wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, or both. There was insufficient data for subgroup analysis of mother's occupation or education. Authors' conclusions There was no conclusive evidence supporting any antenatal BF education for improving initiation of BF, proportion of women giving any BF or exclusively BF at three or six months or the duration of BF. There is an urgent need to conduct a high-quality, randomised controlled study to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of antenatal BF education, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Evidence in this review is primarily relevant to high-income settings.

BACKGROUND Vacuum extraction is a common technique of assisted vaginal delivery. Traditionally, it has been recommended that the pressure is increased slowly in a stepwise procedure; some have advocated rapid increases in pressure. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of rapid versus stepwise negative pressure application for assisted vaginal delivery by vacuum extraction. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (4 April 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials of rapid (within two minutes) versus stepwise (as defined by trialists) increases in negative pressure application for vacuum extraction assisted vaginal delivery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. The same two review authors extracted data. We entered data into Review Manager software and checked for accuracy. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of the contact person's own study were also carried out by three independent assessors who were not involved in the new study. MAIN RESULTS We included two trials involving 754 participants.One new trial of 660 participants showed the same success rate of vacuum procedure of 98.2% by both methods (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.02).The two included trials showed significant reductions in the time between applying the vacuum cup and delivery, (one trial (74 women): mean difference (MD) -6.10 minutes, 95% CI -8.83 to -3.37 and the other trial (660 women): with median difference -4.4 minutes, 95% CI -4.8 to -4.0). The two included trials showed no significant difference in detachment rate (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.86, 2 studies, 754 women), no significant difference in Apgar score below seven at one minute (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.09) and five minutes (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.42), no significant differences in scalp abrasions or lacerations, cephalhematoma, subgaleal hemorrhage and hyperbilirubinemia. There were no significant differences between the two methods in all secondary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The rapid negative pressure application for vacuum assisted vaginal birth reduces duration of the procedure whilst there is no evidence of differences in maternal and neonatal outcomes. Rapid method of negative application should be recommended for vacuum extraction assisted vaginal delivery.

Maternal nutrition during pregnancy is known to have an effect on fetal growth and development. It is recommended that women increase their calcium intake during pregnancy and lactation, although the recommended dosage varies among professionals. Currently, there is no consensus on the role of routine calcium supplementation for pregnant women other than for preventing or treating hypertension.To determine the effect of calcium supplementation on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes (other than for preventing or treating hypertension) as well as any possible side effects.We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 March 2011).We considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women who received calcium supplementation versus placebo or no treatment. We excluded quasi- and pseudo-RCTs.Two review authors identified studies for inclusion and extracted the data. Two review authors performed data analysis.This review includes data from 21 studies (involving 16,602 women). There were no statistically significant differences between women who received calcium supplementation and those who did not in terms of reducing preterm births (less than 37 weeks' gestation) (risk ratio (RR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.11; 12 studies, 15615 women; random-effects model) and also in less than 34 weeks' gestation (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.46; three trials, 5145 women). There was no significant difference in infant low birth weight between the two groups (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.16; four trials, 13449 infants; random-effects). However, compared to the control group, women in the calcium supplementation group gave birth to slightly heavier birth weight infants (mean difference (MD) 64.66 g; 95% CI 15.75 to 113.58; 19 trials, 8287 women; random-effects).Calcium supplementation is associated with a significant protective benefit in the prevention of pre-eclampsia, and should be used for this indication according to a previous review. This review indicates that there are no additional benefits for calcium supplementation in prevention of preterm birth or low infant birth weight. While there was a statistically significant difference of 80 g identified in mean infant birth weight, there was significant heterogeneity identified, and the clinical significance of this difference is uncertain.

Background Evidence on the benefits of admission tests other than cardiotocography in preventing adverse perinatal outcomes has not been established. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of admission tests other than cardiotocography in preventing adverse perinatal outcomes. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2011). Selection criteria Randomised (individual and cluster) controlled trials, comparing labour admission tests other than CTG for the prevention of adverse perinatal outcomes. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. Main results We included one study involving 883 women. Comparison of sonographic assessment of amniotic fluid index (AFI) on admission versus no sonographic assessment of AFI on admission. The incidence of cesarean section for fetal distress in the intervention group (29 of 447) was significantly higher than those of controls (14 of 436) (risk ratio (RR) 2.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 3.77). The incidence of Apgar score less than seven at five minutes in the intervention group (10 of 447) was not significantly different from controls (seven of 436) (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.63). The incidence of artificial oxytocin for augmentation of labour in the intervention group (213 of 447) was significantly higher than controls (132 of 436) (RR 1.57; 95% CI 1.32 to 1.87). The incidence of neonatal NICU admission in the intervention group (35 of 447) was not significantly different from the controls (33 of 436) (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63) Authors' conclusions There is not enough evidence to support the use of admission tests other than cardiotocography for fetal assessment during labour. Appropriate randomised controlled trials with adequate sample size of admission tests other than cardiotocography for fetal assessment during labour are required.

Background Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive disease that initially affects the articular cartilage. Observational studies have shown benefits for arthroscopic debridement (AD) on the osteoarthritic knee, but other recent studies have yielded conflicting results that suggest AD may not be effective. Objectives To identify the effectiveness of AD in knee OA on pain and function. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2006); MEDLINE (1966 to August, 2006); CINAHL (1982 to 2006); EMBASE (1988 to 2006) and Web of Science (1900 to 2006) and screened the bibliographies, reference lists and cited web sites of papers. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) or controlled clinical trials (CCT) assessing effectiveness of AD compared to another surgical procedure, including sham or placebo surgery and other non-surgical interventions, in patients with a diagnosis of primary or secondary OA of the knees, who did not have other joint involvement or conditions requiring long term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The main outcomes were pain relief and improved function of the knee. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Results are presented using weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous data and relative risk (RR) for dichotomous data, and the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) or harm (NNTH). Main results Three RCTs were included with a total of 271 patients. They had different comparison groups and a moderate risk of bias. One study compared AD with lavage and with sham surgery. Compared to lavage the study found no significant difference. Compared to sham surgery placebo, the study found worse outcomes for AD at two weeks (WMD for pain 8.7, 95% CI 1.7 to 15.8, and function 7.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 14.3; NNTH=5) and no significant difference at two years. The second trial, at higher risk of bias, compared AD and arthroscopic washout, and found that AD significantly reduced knee pain compared to washout at five years (RR 5.5, 95% CI 1.7 to 15.5; NNTB=3). The third trial, also at higher risk of bias, compared AD to closed-needle lavage, and found no significant difference. Authors' conclusions There is 'gold' level evidence that AD has no benefit for undiscriminated OA (mechanical or inflammatory causes).

Retained placenta is a potentially life-threatening condition because of its association with postpartum haemorrhage. Manual removal of placenta increases the likelihood of bacterial contamination in the uterine cavity.To compare the effectiveness and side-effects of routine antibiotic use for manual removal of placenta in vaginal birth in women who received antibiotic prophylaxis and those who did not and to identify the appropriate regimen of antibiotic prophylaxis for this procedure.We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 November 2005), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (from 1966 to January 2005), EMBASE (from 1980 to January 2005), CINAHL (from 1982 to January 2005) and LILACS (from 1982 to January 2005).All randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis and placebo or non antibiotic use to prevent endometritis after manual removal of placenta in vaginal birth.If eligible trials were to be identified, trial quality would be assessed and data would be extracted, unblinded by two review authors independently.No studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified.There are no randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent endometritis after manual removal of placenta in vaginal birth.