Search

AIMS OF THE STUDY: To examine the role of Primary Care Groups and Trusts (PCG/T) in relation to nurses working in general practice and community health services. BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades there have been rapid changes in the numbers and roles of nurses working in primary care and community based settings. The establishment of Primary Care Groups offers health care professionals, including nurses, the chance to develop local primary care services and to integrate community and primary care nursing. These developments may offer opportunities or pose threats to nursing staff. RESEARCH METHODS: Data are drawn from a longitudinal study of a randomly selected sample of Primary Care Groups in England (n = 72). In a second survey of Groups carried out in autumn/winter 2000, Primary Care Group chairs and chief officers were interviewed by telephone. RESULTS: Response rates were 97% for both chairs and chief officers (69 of each). Chairs indicated that in most areas Primary Care Groups were consulting with local nurses to develop policy. Fifty-seven (85%) reported that investment in nursing staff and nursing services was a high priority in their area. Twenty-eight (41%) indicated that nurse-led services designed to increase patient access had already been established in their area, and 20 (29%) were planning new nurse-led services. Many developments had been initiated by Primary Care Groups. Initiatives to integrate community and general practice based staff were underway in most areas. CONCLUSIONS: Primary Care Groups and Trusts are initiating changes in general practice and community based services which are likely to have long-term and important implications for nurses in terms of their roles, conditions of work and future careers. It is important that nurses are consulted and are involved in developing and implementing policy change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AIMS OF THE STUDY: To investigate the experiences and perceived influence of nurses serving on English primary care group boards. BACKGROUND: The development of the nursing workforce and nursing services in primary care have been piecemeal and nurses have not always contributed to policy development. The recent establishment of primary care groups (PCGs) in the United Kingdom (UK) potentially offers nurses the opportunity to take a concerted and strategic role in developing professional roles and planning service developments. RESEARCH METHODS: As part of a longitudinal study of a 15% random sample of English primary care groups, nurse board members were surveyed in the winter of 1999. One hundred and forty-four nurses were invited to return self-completion questionnaires. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were returned by 106 of those invited to participate (73%). Respondents reported that combining their usual work with their role in the PCG was frequently difficult. Only 26% perceived that they had been well prepared for their new role. Compared with other board members [for example, general practitioners (GPs)], nurses perceived that their own influence was limited, with only a quarter rating the influence of nurses on decision-making as great. Most of the sample were feeding back information to other primary care and community nurses working in the locality and 52% rated communication with this wider constituency as good or better. Nurse board members were enthusiastic about their role and optimistic about the positive future impact of PCGs on health. CONCLUSIONS: PCGs are still at a relatively early stage in their development. It is still too early to assess their impact on nurses working in primary care and community settings. Board membership offers nurses a voice in local health policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Changes in the organization and funding of health services and in the education and training of NHS staff have placed increased influence in the hands of employers and individual students as users of continuing professional development. Against this policy context an interview study was carried out with students participating in a range of continuing professional development activities. The sample included 89 participants attending a range of courses. Approximately half of the sample had children. Many of the participants were attending courses in their own rather than in their employers' time and several were self-funding. The influence of domestic responsibilities on motivations, along with the impact of course participation on home and family life, were examined. Results revealed that those with children were less likely to perceive continuing education in a positive light compared to those without. The impact of course participation on home and family life was invariably negative and for some the consequences were serious. The policy implications of findings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although nurses' role in rehabilitation has been generally ill-defined and consistently undervalued, of all professional groups, nurses working with stroke patients have potentially the greatest contribution to make. Stroke patients are believed to benefit from good posture yet they can spend long periods in inappropriate positions. This study examined the positioning, handling and mobilizing of stroke patients in hospital. Non-participant observation was used to gather data on stroke patients' position and nurses' activities. This paper addresses two basic questions--what causes the adjustment of patients from poor to good position and who is involved in achieving this adjustment. Poor position was observed to end 158 times in 380 'patient hours' of observation. The most frequent causes of positional improvement were activities whose primary intention was unrelated to position correction. The deliberate adjustment of patients' position by nurses was a rare event which occupied a small part of nurses' time. The potential for a more considered and consistent nursing approach appears to be great. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent randomized controlled trial evaluated the effects of specialist nurses providing information, advice and support to caregivers and patients at home during the first year after a stroke. Reported here are the results of a complementary study which used qualitative methods to examine the experience of patients and caregivers during the year of recovery after a stroke. We used semi-structured interviews with a purposively selected sample of 30 patients and 15 caregivers at the end of a randomized controlled trial (13-16 months post-stroke). Patients and caregivers provided vivid descriptions of the recovery process. Recovery was perceived in terms of the degree of congruence patients identified between their lives before, and after, stroke. Patients therefore had individual and personal yardsticks for measuring their recovery. In conclusion, further research and interventions must consider the diverse, complex, dynamic and highly personal character of stroke recovery. Traditional outcome measures are too simplistic to capture patients' and caregivers' experiences. There do not appear to be single or simple solutions to the problems of facilitating psycho-social adjustment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decade, pre- and post-registration education for nurses and midwives in the United Kingdom has undergone major change, creating an atmosphere where continuing professional development is a matter of priority for individual health care staff. Against this context of change, and as part of a larger study of continuing education and training in the National Health Service, a cohort of participants in a part-time health studies degree course were interviewed using a semi-structured schedule. Twenty-nine nurses, midwives and allied professional staff described their motives for participation in the course and its effects on their professional and personal lives. Data collected in interviews were analysed using qualitative methods and revealed that participation was encouraged by both professional and personal factors. For many staff participation was prompted by negative feelings about themselves and their professional status. Participation in the course was associated with (largely negative) changes in home and family life and most participants faced additional financial burdens. The findings of the study have implications for policy relating to the funding of continual professional education for nurses and other health care staff. Health care staff are receiving mixed messages about continuing education from policy makers and employers. Dependence on willingness and ability to pay for post-registration degree-level studies is unlikely to be an efficient or equitable means of ensuring lifelong learning for healthcare staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The introduction of Project 2000 in the late 1980s aimed to replace the existing two levels of nurse training with a single level of entry. This entailed phasing out training for enrolled nurses (ENs) and 'conversion' courses were introduced to allow ENs to upgrade their qualification. As part of a larger study of continuing education and training in the National Health Service (NHS), a cohort of ENs taking part in an open-learning conversion course were interviewed. Sixteen nurses described their motives for undertaking the course and the impact of the course on their work and home lives. Data collected in interviews were analysed using qualitative methods and revealed that all of these nurses felt under pressure to take part in the course. Participation in the course was associated with changes in home and work life. The findings of the study have implications in terms of study leave policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

Background: Multiple pregnancy is a strong risk factor for preterm birth, and more than 50% of women with a twin pregnancy will give birth prior to 37 weeks' gestation. Infants born preterm are recognised to be at increased risk of many adverse health outcomes, contributing to more than half of overall perinatal mortality. Progesterone is produced naturally in the body and has a role in maintaining pregnancy, although it is not clear whether administering progestogens to women with multiple pregnancy at high risk of early birth is effective and safe. Since publication of this new review in Issue 10, 2017, we have now moved one study (El-Refaie 2016) from included to studies awaiting classification, pending clarification about the study data., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of progesterone administration for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials examining the administration of a progestogen by any route for the prevention of preterm birth in women with multiple pregnancy. We did not include quasi-randomised or cross-over studies., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed reports identified by the search for eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded the quality of the evidence., Main Results: We included 16 trials, which all compared either vaginal or intramuscular (IM) progesterone with a placebo or no treatment, and involved a total of 4548 women. The risk of bias for the majority of included studies was low, with the exception of three studies that had inadequate blinding, or significant loss to follow-up or both, or were not reported well enough for us to make a judgement. We graded the evidence low to high quality, with downgrading for statistical heterogeneity, design limitations in some of the studies contributing data, and imprecision of the effect estimate. 1 IM progesterone versus no treatment or placebo More women delivered at less than 34 weeks' gestation in the IM progesterone group compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 2.26; women = 399; studies = 2; low-quality evidence). Although the incidence of perinatal death in the progesterone group was higher, there was considerable uncertainty around the effect estimate and high heterogeneity between studies (average RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.51; infants = 3089; studies = 6; I 2 = 71%; low-quality evidence). No studies reported maternal mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability at childhood follow-up. There were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal or infant outcomes (preterm birth less than 37 weeks (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13; women = 2010; studies = 5; high-quality evidence); preterm birth less than 28 weeks (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.55; women = 1920; studies = 5; moderate-quality evidence); infant birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.08; infants = 4071; studies = 5; I 2 = 76%, moderate-quality evidence)). No childhood outcomes were reported in the trials. 2 Vaginal progesterone versus no treatment or placebo by dose There were no clear group differences in incidence of preterm birth before 34 weeks (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.23; women = 1503; studies = 5; I 2 = 36%; low-quality evidence). Although fewer births before 34 weeks appeared to occur in the progesterone group, the CIs crossed the line of no effect. Incidence of perinatal death was higher in the progesterone group, although there was considerable uncertainty in the effect estimate and the quality of the evidence was low for this outcome (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.06; infants = 2287; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). No studies reported maternal mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability at childhood follow-up. There were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal or infant outcomes (preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06; women = 1597; studies = 6; moderate-quality evidence); preterm birth less than 28 weeks (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.97; women = 1345; studies = 3; low-quality evidence); infant birthweight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; infants = 2640; studies = 3; I 2 = 66%, moderate-quality evidence)). No childhood outcomes were reported in the trials. For secondary outcomes, there were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal outcomes except for caesarean section, where women who received vaginal progesterone did not have as many caesarean sections as those in the placebo group, although the difference between groups was not large (8%) (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98; women = 1919; studies = 5; I 2 = 0%). There were no clear group differences found in any of the infant outcomes except for mechanical ventilation, which was required by fewer infants whose mothers had received the vaginal progesterone (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; infants = 2695; studies = 4)., Authors' Conclusions: Overall, for women with a multiple pregnancy, the administration of progesterone (either IM or vaginal) does not appear to be associated with a reduction in risk of preterm birth or improved neonatal outcomes. Future research could focus on a comprehensive individual participant data meta-analysis including all of the available data relating to both IM and vaginal progesterone administration in women with a multiple pregnancy, before considering the need to conduct trials in subgroups of high-risk women (for example, women with a multiple pregnancy and a short cervical length identified on ultrasound)., (Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

How should the WHO most efficiently keep its global recommendations up to date? In this article we describe how WHO developed and applied a 'living guidelines' approach to its maternal and perinatal health (MPH) recommendations, based on a systematic and continuous process of prioritisation and updating. Using this approach, 25 new or updated WHO MPH recommendations have been published in 2017-2018. The new approach helps WHO ensure its guidance is responsive to emerging evidence and remains up to date for end users., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LH, FK and JN are affiliated with Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth, which has received a grant (paid to the University of Liverpool) to work with WHO on this project and to support volunteer authors prepare Cochrane reviews. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

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

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

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