OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of cervical pessary in the prevention of preterm births in multiple pregnancies with a short cervix (<25 mm).

SEARCH STRATEGY: Major databases from 2006 to 20th November 2016 were searched for relevant terms.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of cervical pessary on pregnancy outcomes in multiple pregnancies with a short cervix.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Risk ratio was used as the summary measure with random effects model. We assessed heterogeneity between studies using the I2 index. Quality assessment was done based on Cochrane Handbook Method.

MAIN RESULTS: Pooled data showed no benefit of using cervical pessary in the prevention of preterm births, birth weights less than 1500 g, less than 2500 g, adverse neonatal events and fetal/neonatal deaths in twin pregnancies with a short cervix.

METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study involving 58 pregnancies from 1st January 2013 to 31st December 2019. Inclusion criteria were previous mid-trimester miscarriage and/or preterm birth, previous cervical surgery or short cervical length on routine sonogram. The demographic data, characteristics of each pregnancy and details of outcomes and management were described.

RESULTS: The majority of women were Malay with mean age and body mass index of 32.9 ± 4.2 years and 27.1 ± 6.3 kg/m2 respectively. The most frequent indications for Arabin pessary insertion were previous mid-trimester miscarriage (46.4%) and early preterm birth (17.2%). A total of 73.4% of these women had the pessary inserted electively at a mean cervical length of 31.6 ± 9.1 mm at median gestation of 15.0 weeks. They were managed as outpatient (56.9%), inpatient (24.1%) or mixed (19.0%) with combination of progestogen (81.0%) and 53.4% received antenatal corticosteroids. Spontaneous preterm birth at or more than 34 weeks gestation occurred in 74.1% with birthweight at or more than 2000 g (82.4%). Despite cervical funneling in 12 women (20.7%), 66.7% delivered at or later than 34 weeks gestation and 2 (16.7%) resulted in miscarriage.

CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of the Arabin pessary is beneficial to prevent spontaneous preterm birth in pregnant women who are at high risk. In particular, early insertion and close monitoring allows the best possible outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance tocolytic therapy with oral nifedipine on the reduction of adverse neonatal outcomes and the prolongation of pregnancy by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA).

SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials of maintenance tocolysis therapy with nifedipine in preterm labour.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected trials including pregnant women between 24 and 36(6/7)  weeks of gestation (gestational age, GA) with imminent preterm labour who had not delivered after 48 hours of initial tocolysis, and compared maintenance nifedipine tocolysis with placebo/no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was perinatal mortality. Secondary outcome measures were intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS), prolongation of pregnancy, GA at delivery, birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and number of days on ventilation support. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed.

MAIN RESULTS: Six randomised controlled trials were included in this IPDMA, encompassing data from 787 patients (n = 390 for nifedipine; n = 397 for placebo/no treatment). There was no difference between the groups for the incidence of perinatal death (risk ratio, RR 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.35-5.33), intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) ≥ grade II (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.16-2.67), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.50-2.65), infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS) (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.51-1.85), and prolongation of pregnancy (hazard ratio, HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.55-1.01).

CONCLUSION: Maintenance tocolysis is not associated with improved perinatal outcome and is therefore not recommended for routine practice.

METHODS: An interdisciplinary and international Working Group was assembled. Existing literature and current measurement initiatives were reviewed. Serial guided discussions and validation surveys provided consumer input. A series of nine teleconferences, incorporating a modified Delphi process, were held to reach consensus on the proposed Standard Set.

RESULTS: The Working Group selected 24 outcome measures to evaluate care during pregnancy and up to 6 months postpartum. These include clinical outcomes such as maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, stillbirth, preterm birth, birth injury and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mental health, mother-infant bonding, confidence and success with breastfeeding, incontinence, and satisfaction with care and birth experience. To support analysis of these outcome measures, pertinent baseline characteristics and risk factor metrics were also defined.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and the safety of progestogens in the treatment of threatened miscarriage.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (8 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised controlled trials, that compared progestogen with placebo, no treatment or any other treatment for the treatment of threatened miscarriage in women carrying singleton pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors assessed the trials for inclusion in the review, assessed trial quality and extracted the data and graded the body of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (involving 696 participants) in this update of the review. The included trials were conducted in different countries, covering the full spectrum of the World Bank's economic classification, which enhances the applicability of evidence drawn from this review. Two trials were conducted in Germany and Italy which are high-income countries, while four trials were conducted in upper-middle income countries; two in Iran, one in Malaysia and the fourth in Turkey, and the seventh trial was conducted in Jordan, which is a lower-middle income country. In six trials all the participants met the inclusion criteria and in the seventh study, we included in the meta-analysis only the subgroup of participants who met the inclusion criteria. We assessed the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE tool and the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Downgrading of evidence was based on the high risk of bias in six of the seven included trials and a small number of events and wide confidence intervals for some outcomes.Treatment of miscarriage with progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment probably reduces the risk of miscarriage; (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.87; 7 trials; 696 women; moderate-quality evidence). Treatment with oral progestogen compared to no treatment also probably reduces the miscarriage rate (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; 3 trials; 408 women; moderate-quality evidence). However treatment with vaginal progesterone compared to placebo, probably has little or no effect in reducing the miscarriage rate (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.21; 4 trials; 288 women; moderate-quality evidence). The subgroup interaction test indicated no difference according to route of administration between the oral and vaginal subgroups of progesterone.Treatment of preterm birth with the use of progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment may have little or no effect in reducing the rate of preterm birth (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.44; 5 trials; 588 women; low-quality evidence).We are uncertain if treatment of threatened miscarriage with progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment has any effect on the rate of congenital abnormalities because the quality of the evidence is very low (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.10 to 4.82; 2 trials; 337 infants; very-low quality evidence).

METHOD: We reviewed the medical records of 9550 women (9665 infants including 111 twins and two triplets) admitted to the labour wards of nine hospitals in four South East Asian countries during 2005. For women who gave birth before 34 weeks gestation we collected information on women's demographic and pregnancy background, the type, dose and use of corticosteroids, and key birth and infant outcomes.

RESULTS: Administration of antenatal corticosteroids to women who gave birth before 34 weeks gestation varied widely between countries (9% to 73%) and also between hospitals within countries (0% to 86%). Antenatal corticosteroids were most commonly given when women were between 28 and 34 weeks gestation (80%). Overall 6% of women received repeat doses of corticosteroids. Dexamethasone was the only type of antenatal corticosteroid used. Women receiving antenatal corticosteroids compared with those not given antenatal corticosteroids were less likely to have had a previous pregnancy and to be booked for birth at the hospital and almost three times as likely to have a current multiple pregnancy. Exposed women were less likely to be induced and almost twice as likely to have a caesarean section, a primary postpartum haemorrhage and postpartum pyrexia. Infants exposed to antenatal corticosteroids compared with infants not exposed were less likely to die. Live born exposed infants were less likely to have Apgar scores of < 7 at five minutes and less likely to have any lung disease.