Liverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust

BACKGROUND: Respiratory morbidity including respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is a serious complication of preterm birth and the primary cause of early neonatal mortality and disability. While researching the effects of the steroid dexamethasone on premature parturition in fetal sheep in 1969, Liggins found that there was some inflation of the lungs of lambs born at gestations at which the lungs would be expected to be airless. Liggins and Howie published the first randomised controlled trial in humans in 1972 and many others followed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of administering a course of corticosteroids to the mother prior to anticipated preterm birth on fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, maternal mortality and morbidity, and on the child in later life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (17 February 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised controlled comparisons of antenatal corticosteroid administration (betamethasone, dexamethasone, or hydrocortisone) with placebo, or with no treatment, given to women with a singleton or multiple pregnancy, prior to anticipated preterm delivery (elective, or following spontaneous labour), regardless of other co-morbidity, for inclusion in this review. Most women in this review received a single course of steroids; however, nine of the included trials allowed for women to have weekly repeats. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 30 studies (7774 women and 8158 infants). Most studies are of low or unclear risk for most bias domains. An assessment of high risk usually meant a trial had potential for performance bias due to lack of blinding. Two trials had low risks of bias for all risk of bias domains.Treatment with antenatal corticosteroids (compared with placebo or no treatment) is associated with a reduction in the most serious adverse outcomes related to prematurity, including: perinatal death (average risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.89; participants = 6729; studies = 15; Tau² = 0.05, I² = 34%; moderate-quality); neonatal death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81; participants = 7188; studies = 22), RDS (average RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.77; participants = 7764; studies = 28; Tau² = 0.06, I² = 48%; moderate-quality); moderate/severe RDS (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.91; participants = 1686; studies = 6; Tau² = 0.14, I² = 52%); intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) (average RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.76; participants = 6093; studies = 16; Tau² = 0.10, I² = 33%; moderate-quality), necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.78; participants = 4702; studies = 10); need for mechanical ventilation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; participants = 1368; studies = 9); and systemic infections in the first 48 hours of life (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88; participants = 1753; studies = 8).There was no obvious benefit for: chronic lung disease (average RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; participants = 818; studies = 6; Tau² = 0.38 I² = 65%); mean birthweight (g) (MD -18.47, 95% CI -40.83 to 3.90; participants = 6182; studies = 16; moderate-quality); death in childhood (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; participants = 1010; studies = 4); neurodevelopment delay in childhood (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.98; participants = 82; studies = 1); or death into adulthood (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.81; participants = 988; studies = 1).Treatment with antenatal corticosteroids does not increase the risk of chorioamnionitis (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06; participants = 5546; studies = 15; moderate-quality evidence) or endometritis (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.63; participants = 4030; studies = 10; Tau² = 0.11, I² = 28%; moderate-quality). No increased risk in maternal death was observed. However, the data on maternal death is based on data from a single trial with two deaths; four other trials reporting maternal death had zero events (participants = 3392; studies = 5; moderate-quality).There is no definitive evidence to suggest that antenatal corticosteroids work differently in any pre-specified subgroups (singleton versus multiple pregnancy; membrane status; presence of hypertension) or for different study protocols (type of corticosteroid; single course or weekly repeats).GRADE outcomes were downgraded to moderate-quality. Downgrading decisions (for perinatal death, RDS, IVH, and mean birthweight) were due to limitations in study design or concerns regarding precision (chorioamnionitis, endometritis). Maternal death was downgraded for imprecision due to few events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this update supports the continued use of a single course of antenatal corticosteroids to accelerate fetal lung maturation in women at risk of preterm birth. A single course of antenatal corticosteroids could be considered routine for preterm delivery. It is important to note that most of the evidence comes from high income countries and hospital settings; therefore, the results may not be applicable to low-resource settings with high rates of infections.There is little need for further trials of a single course of antenatal corticosteroids versus placebo in singleton pregnancies in higher income countries and hospital settings. However, data are sparse in lower income settings. There are also few data regarding risks and benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in multiple pregnancies and other high-risk obstetric groups. Further information is also required concerning the optimal dose-to-delivery interval, and the optimal corticosteroid to use.We encourage authors of previous studies to provide further information, which may answer any remaining questions about the use of antenatal corticosteroids in such pregnancies without the need for further randomised controlled trials. Individual patient data meta-analysis from published trials is likely to answer some of the evidence gaps. Follow-up studies into childhood and adulthood, particularly in the late preterm gestation and repeat courses groups, are needed. We have not examined the possible harmful effects of antenatal corticosteroids in low-resource settings in this review. It would be particularly relevant to explore this finding in adequately powered prospective trials.

BACKGROUND: Mother-infant separation post birth is common. In standard hospital care, newborn infants are held wrapped or dressed in their mother's arms, placed in open cribs or under radiant warmers. Skin-to-skin contact (SSC) begins ideally at birth and should last continually until the end of the first breastfeeding. SSC involves placing the dried, naked baby prone on the mother's bare chest, often covered with a warm blanket. According to mammalian neuroscience, the intimate contact inherent in this place (habitat) evokes neuro-behaviors ensuring fulfillment of basic biological needs. This time frame immediately post birth may represent a 'sensitive period' for programming future physiology and behavior. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of immediate or early SSC for healthy newborn infants compared to standard contact on establishment and maintenance of breastfeeding and infant physiology. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 December 2015), made personal contact with trialists, consulted the bibliography on kangaroo mother care (KMC) maintained by Dr Susan Ludington, and reviewed reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that compared immediate or early SSC with usual hospital care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 46 trials with 3850 women and their infants; 38 trials with 3472 women and infants contributed data to our analyses. Trials took place in 21 countries, and most recruited small samples (just 12 trials randomized more than 100 women). Eight trials included women who had SSC after cesarean birth. All infants recruited to trials were healthy, and the majority were full term. Six trials studied late preterm infants (greater than 35 weeks' gestation). No included trial met all criteria for good quality with respect to methodology and reporting; no trial was successfully blinded, and all analyses were imprecise due to small sample size. Many analyses had statistical heterogeneity due to considerable differences between SSC and standard care control groups. Results for womenSSC women were more likely than women with standard contact to be breastfeeding at one to four months post birth, though there was some uncertainty in this estimate due to risks of bias in included trials (average risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.43; participants = 887; studies = 14; I² = 41%; GRADE: moderate quality). SSC women also breast fed their infants longer, though data were limited (mean difference (MD) 64 days, 95% CI 37.96 to 89.50; participants = 264; studies = six; GRADE:low quality); this result was from a sensitivity analysis excluding one trial contributing all of the heterogeneity in the primary analysis. SSC women were probably more likely to exclusively breast feed from hospital discharge to one month post birth and from six weeks to six months post birth, though both analyses had substantial heterogeneity (from discharge average RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.49; participants = 711; studies = six; I² = 44%; GRADE: moderate quality; from six weeks average RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.90; participants = 640; studies = seven; I² = 62%; GRADE: moderate quality).Women in the SCC group had higher mean scores for breastfeeding effectiveness, with moderate heterogeneity (IBFAT (Infant Breastfeeding Assessment Tool) score MD 2.28, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.15; participants = 384; studies = four; I² = 41%). SSC infants were more likely to breast feed successfully during their first feed, with high heterogeneity (average RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.67; participants = 575; studies = five; I² = 85%). Results for infantsSSC infants had higher SCRIP (stability of the cardio-respiratory system) scores overall, suggesting better stabilization on three physiological parameters. However, there were few infants, and the clinical significance of the test was unclear because trialists reported averages of multiple time points (standardized mean difference (SMD) 1.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; participants = 81; studies = two; GRADE low quality). SSC infants had higher blood glucose levels (MD 10.49, 95% CI 8.39 to 12.59; participants = 144; studies = three; GRADE: low quality), but similar temperature to infants in standard care (MD 0.30 degree Celcius (°C) 95% CI 0.13 °C to 0.47 °C; participants = 558; studies = six; I² = 88%; GRADE: low quality). Women and infants after cesarean birthWomen practicing SSC after cesarean birth were probably more likely to breast feed one to four months post birth and to breast feed successfully (IBFAT score), but analyses were based on just two trials and few women. Evidence was insufficient to determine whether SSC could improve breastfeeding at other times after cesarean. Single trials contributed to infant respiratory rate, maternal pain and maternal state anxiety with no power to detect group differences. SubgroupsWe found no differences for any outcome when we compared times of initiation (immediate less than 10 minutes post birth versus early 10 minutes or more post birth) or lengths of contact time (60 minutes or less contact versus more than 60 minutes contact). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the use of SSC to promote breastfeeding. Studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm physiological benefit for infants during transition to extra-uterine life and to establish possible dose-response effects and optimal initiation time. Methodological quality of trials remains problematic, and small trials reporting different outcomes with different scales and limited data limit our confidence in the benefits of SSC for infants. Our review included only healthy infants, which limits the range of physiological parameters observed and makes their interpretation difficult.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is a serious complication of preterm birth and the primary cause of early neonatal mortality and disability. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, on maternal mortality and morbidity, and on the child in later life of administering corticosteroids to the mother before anticipated preterm birth. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 October 2005). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled comparisons of antenatal corticosteroid administration (betamethasone, dexamethasone, or hydrocortisone) with placebo or with no treatment given to women with a singleton or multiple pregnancy, expected to deliver preterm as a result of either spontaneous preterm labour, preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes or elective preterm delivery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (3885 women and 4269 infants) are included. Treatment with antenatal corticosteroids does not increase risk to the mother of death, chorioamnionitis or puerperal sepsis. Treatment with antenatal corticosteroids is associated with an overall reduction in neonatal death (relative risk (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.81, 18 studies, 3956 infants), RDS (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.73, 21 studies, 4038 infants), cerebroventricular haemorrhage (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.69, 13 studies, 2872 infants), necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.74, eight studies, 1675 infants), respiratory support, intensive care admissions (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.99, two studies, 277 infants) and systemic infections in the first 48 hours of life (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85, five studies, 1319 infants). Antenatal corticosteroid use is effective in women with premature rupture of membranes and pregnancy related hypertension syndromes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from this new review supports the continued use of a single course of antenatal corticosteroids to accelerate fetal lung maturation in women at risk of preterm birth. A single course of antenatal corticosteroids should be considered routine for preterm delivery with few exceptions. Further information is required concerning optimal dose to delivery interval, optimal corticosteroid to use, effects in multiple pregnancies, and to confirm the long-term effects into adulthood.

Abstract The genetic make-up of an individual contributes to the susceptibility and response to viral infection. Although environmental, clinical and social factors have a role in the chance of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of COVID-19 1,2 , host genetics may also be important. Identifying host-specific genetic factors may reveal biological mechanisms of therapeutic relevance and clarify causal relationships of modifiable environmental risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes. We formed a global network of researchers to investigate the role of human genetics in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Here we describe the results of three genome-wide association meta-analyses that consist of up to 49,562 patients with COVID-19 from 46 studies across 19 countries. We report 13 genome-wide significant loci that are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe manifestations of COVID-19. Several of these loci correspond to previously documented associations to lung or autoimmune and inflammatory diseases 3–7 . They also represent potentially actionable mechanisms in response to infection. Mendelian randomization analyses support a causal role for smoking and body-mass index for severe COVID-19 although not for type II diabetes. The identification of novel host genetic factors associated with COVID-19 was made possible by the community of human genetics researchers coming together to prioritize the sharing of data, results, resources and analytical frameworks. This working model of international collaboration underscores what is possible for future genetic discoveries in emerging pandemics, or indeed for any complex human disease.

BACKGROUND: Cardiotocography (CTG) records changes in the fetal heart rate and their temporal relationship to uterine contractions. The aim is to identify babies who may be short of oxygen (hypoxic) to guide additional assessments of fetal wellbeing, or determine if the baby needs to be delivered by caesarean section or instrumental vaginal birth. This is an update of a review previously published in 2013, 2006 and 2001. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of continuous cardiotocography when used as a method to monitor fetal wellbeing during labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of continuous cardiotocography (with and without fetal blood sampling) with no fetal monitoring, intermittent auscultation intermittent cardiotocography. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, quality and extracted data from included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 trials involving over 37,000 women. No new studies were included in this update.One trial (4044 women) compared continuous CTG with intermittent CTG, all other trials compared continuous CTG with intermittent auscultation. No data were found comparing no fetal monitoring with continuous CTG. Overall, methodological quality was mixed. All included studies were at high risk of performance bias, unclear or high risk of detection bias, and unclear risk of reporting bias. Only two trials were assessed at high methodological quality.Compared with intermittent auscultation, continuous cardiotocography showed no significant improvement in overall perinatal death rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.23, N = 33,513, 11 trials, low quality evidence), but was associated with halving neonatal seizure rates (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80, N = 32,386, 9 trials, moderate quality evidence). There was no difference in cerebral palsy rates (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.63, N = 13,252, 2 trials, low quality evidence). There was an increase in caesarean sections associated with continuous CTG (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.07, N = 18,861, 11 trials, low quality evidence). Women were also more likely to have instrumental vaginal births (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.33, N = 18,615, 10 trials, low quality evidence). There was no difference in the incidence of cord blood acidosis (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.11, N = 2494, 2 trials, very low quality evidence) or use of any pharmacological analgesia (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09, N = 1677, 3 trials, low quality evidence).Compared with intermittent CTG, continuous CTG made no difference to caesarean section rates (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.97, N = 4044, 1 trial) or instrumental births (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.46, N = 4044, 1 trial). Less cord blood acidosis was observed in women who had intermittent CTG, however, this result could have been due to chance (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.14, N = 4044, 1 trial).Data for low risk, high risk, preterm pregnancy and high-quality trials subgroups were consistent with overall results. Access to fetal blood sampling did not appear to influence differences in neonatal seizures or other outcomes.Evidence was assessed using GRADE. Most outcomes were graded as low quality evidence (rates of perinatal death, cerebral palsy, caesarean section, instrumental vaginal births, and any pharmacological analgesia), and downgraded for limitations in design, inconsistency and imprecision of results. The remaining outcomes were downgraded to moderate quality (neonatal seizures) and very low quality (cord blood acidosis) due to similar concerns over limitations in design, inconsistency and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CTG during labour is associated with reduced rates of neonatal seizures, but no clear differences in cerebral palsy, infant mortality or other standard measures of neonatal wellbeing. However, continuous CTG was associated with an increase in caesarean sections and instrumental vaginal births. The challenge is how best to convey these results to women to enable them to make an informed decision without compromising the normality of labour.The question remains as to whether future randomised trials should measure efficacy (the intrinsic value of continuous CTG in trying to prevent adverse neonatal outcomes under optimal clinical conditions) or effectiveness (the effect of this technique in routine clinical practice).Along with the need for further investigations into long-term effects of operative births for women and babies, much remains to be learned about the causation and possible links between antenatal or intrapartum events, neonatal seizures and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, whilst considering changes in clinical practice over the intervening years (one-to-one-support during labour, caesarean section rates). The large number of babies randomised to the trials in this review have now reached adulthood and could potentially provide a unique opportunity to clarify if a reduction in neonatal seizures is something inconsequential that should not greatly influence women's and clinicians' choices, or if seizure reduction leads to long-term benefits for babies. Defining meaningful neurological and behavioural outcomes that could be measured in large cohorts of young adults poses huge challenges. However, it is important to collect data from these women and babies while medical records still exist, where possible describe women's mobility and positions during labour and birth, and clarify if these might impact on outcomes. Research should also address the possible contribution of the supine position to adverse outcomes for babies, and assess whether the use of mobility and positions can further reduce the low incidence of neonatal seizures and improve psychological outcomes for women.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is associated with deficient intravascular production of prostacyclin, a vasodilator, and excessive production of thromboxane, a vasoconstrictor and stimulant of platelet aggregation. These observations led to the hypotheses that antiplatelet agents, low-dose aspirin in particular, might prevent or delay development of pre-eclampsia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of antiplatelet agents for women at risk of developing pre-eclampsia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (July 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 1), EMBASE (1994 to November 2005) and handsearched congress proceedings of the International and European Societies for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials comparing antiplatelet agents with either placebo or no antiplatelet agent were included. Quasi-random studies were excluded. Participants were pregnant women at risk of developing pre-eclampsia. Interventions were any comparisons of an antiplatelet agent (such as low-dose aspirin or dipyridamole) with either placebo or no antiplatelet. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-nine trials (37,560 women) are included. There is a 17% reduction in the risk of pre-eclampsia associated with the use of antiplatelet agents ((46 trials, 32,891 women, relative risk (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.89), number needed to treat (NNT) 72 (52, 119)). Although there is no statistical difference in RR based on maternal risk, there is a significant increase in the absolute risk reduction of pre-eclampsia for high risk (risk difference (RD) -5.2% (-7.5, -2.9), NNT 19 (13, 34)) compared with moderate risk women (RD -0.84 (-1.37, -0.3), NNT 119 (73, 333)). Antiplatelets were associated with an 8% reduction in the relative risk of preterm birth (29 trials, 31,151 women, RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97); NNT 72 (52, 119)), a 14% reduction in fetal or neonatal deaths (40 trials, 33,098 women, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.98); NNT 243 (131, 1,666) and a 10% reduction in small-for-gestational age babies (36 trials, 23,638 women, RR 0.90, 95% CI0.83 to 0.98). There were no statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups for any other outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antiplatelet agents, largely low-dose aspirin, have moderate benefits when used for prevention of pre-eclampsia and its consequences. Further information is required to assess which women are most likely to benefit, when treatment is best started, and at what dose.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns regarding unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of all modalities of epidural analgesia (including combined-spinal-epidural) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing all modalities of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two of the review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility, methodological quality and extracted all data. We entered data into RevMan and double checked it for accuracy. Primary analysis was by intention to treat; we conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses where substantial heterogeneity was evident. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 studies involving 9658 women; all but five studies compared epidural analgesia with opiates. Epidural analgesia was found to offer better pain relief (mean difference (MD) -3.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.41 to -1.31, three trials, 1166 women); a reduction in the need for additional pain relief (risk ratio (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17, 15 trials, 6019 women); a reduced risk of acidosis (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.94, seven trials, 3643 women); and a reduced risk of naloxone administration (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.23, 10 trials, 2645 women). However, epidural analgesia was associated with an increased risk of assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.57, 23 trials, 7935 women), maternal hypotension (RR 18.23, 95% CI 5.09 to 65.35, eight trials, 2789 women), motor-blockade (RR 31.67, 95% CI 4.33 to 231.51, three trials, 322 women), maternal fever (RR 3.34, 95% CI 2.63 to 4.23, six trials, 2741 women), urinary retention (RR 17.05, 95% CI 4.82 to 60.39, three trials, 283 women), longer second stage of labour (MD 13.66 minutes, 95% CI 6.67 to 20.66, 13 trials, 4233 women), oxytocin administration (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.39, 13 trials, 5815 women) and an increased risk of caesarean section for fetal distress (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.97, 11 trials, 4816 women). There was no evidence of a significant difference in the risk of caesarean section overall (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.25, 27 trials, 8417 women), long-term backache (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07, three trials, 1806 women), Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.20, 18 trials, 6898 women), and maternal satisfaction with pain relief (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.05, seven trials, 2929 women). We found substantial heterogeneity for the following outcomes: pain relief; maternal satisfaction; need for additional means of pain relief; length of second stage of labour; and oxytocin augmentation. This could not be explained by subgroup or sensitivity analyses, where data allowed analysis. No studies reported on rare but potentially serious adverse effects of epidural analgesia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Epidural analgesia appears to be effective in reducing pain during labour. However, women who use this form of pain relief are at increased risk of having an instrumental delivery. Epidural analgesia had no statistically significant impact on the risk of caesarean section, maternal satisfaction with pain relief and long-term backache and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Policies for timing of cord clamping vary, with early cord clamping generally carried out in the first 60 seconds after birth, whereas later cord clamping usually involves clamping the umbilical cord more than one minute after the birth or when cord pulsation has ceased. The benefits and potential harms of each policy are debated. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of early cord clamping compared with late cord clamping after birth on maternal and neonatal outcomes SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (13 February 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing early and late cord clamping. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials involving a total of 3911 women and infant pairs. We judged the trials to have an overall moderate risk of bias. MATERNAL OUTCOMES: No studies in this review reported on maternal death or on severe maternal morbidity. There were no significant differences between early versus late cord clamping groups for the primary outcome of severe postpartum haemorrhage (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.65; five trials with data for 2066 women with a late clamping event rate (LCER) of ~3.5%, I(2) 0%) or for postpartum haemorrhage of 500 mL or more (RR 1.17 95% CI 0.94 to 1.44; five trials, 2260 women with a LCER of ~12%, I(2) 0%). There were no significant differences between subgroups depending on the use of uterotonic drugs. Mean blood loss was reported in only two trials with data for 1345 women, with no significant differences seen between groups; or for maternal haemoglobin values (mean difference (MD) -0.12 g/dL; 95% CI -0.30 to 0.06, I(2) 0%) at 24 to 72 hours after the birth in three trials. NEONATAL OUTCOMES: There were no significant differences between early and late clamping for the primary outcome of neonatal mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.41, two trials, 381 infants with a LCER of ~1%), or for most other neonatal morbidity outcomes, such as Apgar score less than seven at five minutes or admission to the special care nursery or neonatal intensive care unit. Mean birthweight was significantly higher in the late, compared with early, cord clamping (101 g increase 95% CI 45 to 157, random-effects model, 12 trials, 3139 infants, I(2) 62%). Fewer infants in the early cord clamping group required phototherapy for jaundice than in the late cord clamping group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.96, data from seven trials, 2324 infants with a LCER of 4.36%, I(2) 0%). Haemoglobin concentration in infants at 24 to 48 hours was significantly lower in the early cord clamping group (MD -1.49 g/dL, 95% CI -1.78 to -1.21; 884 infants, I(2) 59%). This difference in haemoglobin concentration was not seen at subsequent assessments. However, improvement in iron stores appeared to persist, with infants in the early cord clamping over twice as likely to be iron deficient at three to six months compared with infants whose cord clamping was delayed (RR 2.65 95% CI 1.04 to 6.73, five trials, 1152 infants, I(2) 82%). In the only trial to report longer-term neurodevelopmental outcomes so far, no overall differences between early and late clamping were seen for Ages and Stages Questionnaire scores. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A more liberal approach to delaying clamping of the umbilical cord in healthy term infants appears to be warranted, particularly in light of growing evidence that delayed cord clamping increases early haemoglobin concentrations and iron stores in infants. Delayed cord clamping is likely to be beneficial as long as access to treatment for jaundice requiring phototherapy is available.

defined by trial authors.....

BACKGROUND: Fetal structural anomalies, which are detected by ultrasonography, have a range of genetic causes, including chromosomal aneuploidy, copy number variations (CNVs; which are detectable by chromosomal microarrays), and pathogenic sequence variants in developmental genes. Testing for aneuploidy and CNVs is routine during the investigation of fetal structural anomalies, but there is little information on the clinical usefulness of genome-wide next-generation sequencing in the prenatal setting. We therefore aimed to evaluate the proportion of fetuses with structural abnormalities that had identifiable variants in genes associated with developmental disorders when assessed with whole-exome sequencing (WES). METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, two groups in Birmingham and London recruited patients from 34 fetal medicine units in England and Scotland. We used whole-exome sequencing (WES) to evaluate the presence of genetic variants in developmental disorder genes (diagnostic genetic variants) in a cohort of fetuses with structural anomalies and samples from their parents, after exclusion of aneuploidy and large CNVs. Women were eligible for inclusion if they were undergoing invasive testing for identified nuchal translucency or structural anomalies in their fetus, as detected by ultrasound after 11 weeks of gestation. The partners of these women also had to consent to participate. Sequencing results were interpreted with a targeted virtual gene panel for developmental disorders that comprised 1628 genes. Genetic results related to fetal structural anomaly phenotypes were then validated and reported postnatally. The primary endpoint, which was assessed in all fetuses, was the detection of diagnostic genetic variants considered to have caused the fetal developmental anomaly. FINDINGS: The cohort was recruited between Oct 22, 2014, and June 29, 2017, and clinical data were collected until March 31, 2018. After exclusion of fetuses with aneuploidy and CNVs, 610 fetuses with structural anomalies and 1202 matched parental samples (analysed as 596 fetus-parental trios, including two sets of twins, and 14 fetus-parent dyads) were analysed by WES. After bioinformatic filtering and prioritisation according to allele frequency and effect on protein and inheritance pattern, 321 genetic variants (representing 255 potential diagnoses) were selected as potentially pathogenic genetic variants (diagnostic genetic variants), and these variants were reviewed by a multidisciplinary clinical review panel. A diagnostic genetic variant was identified in 52 (8·5%; 95% CI 6·4-11·0) of 610 fetuses assessed and an additional 24 (3·9%) fetuses had a variant of uncertain significance that had potential clinical usefulness. Detection of diagnostic genetic variants enabled us to distinguish between syndromic and non-syndromic fetal anomalies (eg, congenital heart disease only vs a syndrome with congenital heart disease and learning disability). Diagnostic genetic variants were present in 22 (15·4%) of 143 fetuses with multisystem anomalies (ie, more than one fetal structural anomaly), nine (11·1%) of 81 fetuses with cardiac anomalies, and ten (15·4%) of 65 fetuses with skeletal anomalies; these phenotypes were most commonly associated with diagnostic variants. However, diagnostic genetic variants were least common in fetuses with isolated increased nuchal translucency (≥4·0 mm) in the first trimester (in three [3·2%] of 93 fetuses). INTERPRETATION: WES facilitates genetic diagnosis of fetal structural anomalies, which enables more accurate predictions of fetal prognosis and risk of recurrence in future pregnancies. However, the overall detection of diagnostic genetic variants in a prospectively ascertained cohort with a broad range of fetal structural anomalies is lower than that suggested by previous smaller-scale studies of fewer phenotypes. WES improved the identification of genetic disorders in fetuses with structural abnormalities; however, before clinical implementation, careful consideration should be given to case selection to maximise clinical usefulness. FUNDING: UK Department of Health and Social Care and The Wellcome Trust.

BACKGROUND: Infants born preterm (before 37 weeks' gestation) have poorer outcomes than infants at term, particularly if born before 32 weeks. Early cord clamping has been standard practice over many years, and enables quick transfer of the infant to neonatal care. Delayed clamping allows blood flow between the placenta, umbilical cord and baby to continue, and may aid transition. Keeping baby at the mother's side enables neonatal care with the cord intact and this, along with delayed clamping, may improve outcomes. Umbilical cord milking (UCM) is proposed for increasing placental transfusion when immediate care for the preterm baby is needed. This Cochrane Review is a further update of a review first published in 2004 and updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on infants born at less than 37 weeks' gestation, and their mothers of: 1) delayed cord clamping (DCC) compared with early cord clamping (ECC) both with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping; 2) DCC with immediate neonatal care with cord intact compared with ECC with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping; 3) DCC with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping compared with UCM; 4) UCM compared with ECC with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (10 November 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search in November 2018 and added nine new trial reports to the awaiting classification section to be assessed at the next update. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing delayed with early clamping of the umbilical cord (with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping or with cord intact) and UCM for births before 37 weeks' gestation. Quasi-RCTs were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Random-effects are used in all meta-analyses. Review authors assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: weeks' gestation at birth and multiple births were included. The data are mostly from high-income countries. Delayed clamping ranged between 30 to 180 seconds, with most studies delaying for 30 to 60 seconds. Early clamping was less than 30 seconds and often immediate. UCM was mostly before cord clamping but some were milked after cord clamping. We undertook subgroup analysis by gestation and type of intervention, and sensitivity analyses by low risk of selection and attrition bias.All studies were high risk for performance bias and many were unclear for other aspects of risk of bias. Certainty of the evidence using GRADE was mostly low, mainly due to imprecision and unclear risk of bias.Delayed cord clamping (DCC) versus early cord clamping (ECC) both with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping (25 studies, 3100 babies and their mothers)DCC probably reduces the number of babies who die before discharge compared with ECC (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.98, 20 studies, 2680 babies (moderate certainty)).No studies reported on 'Death or neurodevelopmental impairment' in the early years'.DCC may make little or no difference to the number of babies with severe intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH grades 3 and 4) (aRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.39, 10 studies, 2058 babies, low certainty) but slightly reduces the number of babies with any grade IVH (aRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99, 15 studies, 2333 babies, high certainty).DCC has little or no effect on chronic lung disease (CLD) (aRR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.14, 6 studies, 1644 babies, high certainty).Due to insufficient data, we were unable to form conclusions regarding periventricular leukomalacia (PVL) (aRR 0.58, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.30, 4 studies, 1544 babies, low certainty) or maternal blood loss of 500 mL or greater (aRR 1.14, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.63, 2 studies, 180 women, very low certainty).We identified no important heterogeneity in subgroup or sensitivity analyses.Delayed cord clamping (DCC) with immediate neonatal care with cord intact versus early cord clamping (ECC) (one study, 276 babies and their mothers)There are insufficient data to be confident in our findings, but DCC with immediate neonatal care with cord intact may reduce the number of babies who die before discharge, although the data are also compatible with a slight increase in mortality, compared with ECC (aRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.11, 1 study, 270 babies, low certainty). DCC may also reduce the number of babies who die or have neurodevelopmental impairment in early years (aRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96, 1 study, 218 babies, low certainty). There may be little or no difference in: severe IVH; all grades IVH; PVL; CLD; maternal blood loss ≥ 500 mL, assessed as low certainty mainly due to serious imprecision.Delayed cord clamping (DCC) with immediate neonatal care after cord clamping versus umbilical cord milking (UCM) (three studies, 322 babies and their mothers) and UCM versus early cord clamping (ECC) (11 studies, 1183 babies and their mothers)There are insufficient data for reliable conclusions about the comparative effects of UCM compared with delayed or early clamping (mostly low or very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Delayed, rather than early, cord clamping may reduce the risk of death before discharge for babies born preterm. There is insufficient evidence to show what duration of delay is best, one or several minutes, and therefore the optimum time to clamp the umbilical cord remains unclear. Whilst the current evidence supports not clamping the cord before 30 seconds at preterm births, future trials could compare different lengths of delay. Immediate neonatal care with the cord intact requires further study, and there are insufficient data on UCM.The nine new reports awaiting further classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review (Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour), last published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined-spinal-epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised trials in this update. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low-quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate-quality evidence), and maternal long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias.Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long-term neonatal outcomes were not reported.Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu-stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non-epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long-term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non-epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.

Cardiotocography (CTG) records changes in the fetal heart rate and their temporal relationship to uterine contractions. The aim is to identify babies who may be short of oxygen (hypoxic) to guide additional assessments of fetal wellbeing, or determine if the baby needs to be delivered by caesarean section or instrumental vaginal birth. This is an update of a review previously published in 2013, 2006 and 2001.

BACKGROUND: The pain that women experience during labour is affected by multiple physiological and psychosocial factors and its intensity can vary greatly. Most women in labour require pain relief. Pain management strategies include non-pharmacological interventions (that aim to help women cope with pain in labour) and pharmacological interventions (that aim to relieve the pain of labour). OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage pain in labour. We considered findings from non-Cochrane systematic reviews if there was no relevant Cochrane review. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 5), The Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to 31 May 2011) to identify all relevant systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of pain management in labour. Each of the contributing Cochrane reviews (nine new, six updated) followed a generic protocol with 13 common primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Each Cochrane review included comparisons with placebo, standard care or with a different intervention according to a predefined hierarchy of interventions. Two review authors extracted data and assessed methodological quality, and data were checked by a third author. This overview is a narrative summary of the results obtained from individual reviews. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 15 Cochrane reviews (255 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (55 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. For all interventions, with available data, results are presented as comparisons of: 1. Intervention versus placebo or standard care; 2. Different forms of the same intervention (e.g. one opioid versus another opioid); 3. One type of intervention versus a different type of intervention (e.g. TENS versus opioid). Not all reviews included results for all comparisons. Most reviews compared the intervention with placebo or standard care, but with the exception of opioids and epidural analgesia, there were few direct comparisons between different forms of the same intervention, and even fewer comparisons between different interventions. Based on these three comparisons, we have categorised interventions into: " What works" ,"What may work", and "Insufficient evidence to make a judgement".WHAT WORKSEvidence suggests that epidural, combined spinal epidural (CSE) and inhaled analgesia effectively manage pain in labour, but may give rise to adverse effects. Epidural, and inhaled analgesia effectively relieve pain when compared with placebo or a different type of intervention (epidural versus opioids). Combined-spinal epidurals relieve pain more quickly than traditional or low dose epidurals. Women receiving inhaled analgesia were more likely to experience vomiting, nausea and dizziness.When compared with placebo or opioids, women receiving epidural analgesia had more instrumental vaginal births and caesarean sections for fetal distress, although there was no difference in the rates of caesarean section overall. Women receiving epidural analgesia were more likely to experience hypotension, motor blockade, fever or urinary retention. Less urinary retention was observed in women receiving CSE than in women receiving traditional epidurals. More women receiving CSE than low-dose epidural experienced pruritus. WHAT MAY WORKThere is some evidence to suggest that immersion in water, relaxation, acupuncture, massage and local anaesthetic nerve blocks or non-opioid drugs may improve management of labour pain, with few adverse effects. Evidence was mainly limited to single trials. These interventions relieved pain and improved satisfaction with pain relief (immersion, relaxation, acupuncture, local anaesthetic nerve blocks, non-opioids) and childbirth experience (immersion, relaxation, non-opioids) when compared with placebo or standard care. Relaxation was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and acupuncture was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and caesarean sections.INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCEThere is insufficient evidence to make judgements on whether or not hypnosis, biofeedback, sterile water injection, aromatherapy, TENS, or parenteral opioids are more effective than placebo or other interventions for pain management in labour. In comparison with other opioids more women receiving pethidine experienced adverse effects including drowsiness and nausea. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most methods of non-pharmacological pain management are non-invasive and appear to be safe for mother and baby, however, their efficacy is unclear, due to limited high quality evidence. In many reviews, only one or two trials provided outcome data for analysis and the overall methodological quality of the trials was low. High quality trials are needed.There is more evidence to support the efficacy of pharmacological methods, but these have more adverse effects. Thus, epidural analgesia provides effective pain relief but at the cost of increased instrumental vaginal birth.It remains important to tailor methods used to each woman's wishes, needs and circumstances, such as anticipated duration of labour, the infant's condition, and any augmentation or induction of labour.A major challenge in compiling this overview, and the individual systematic reviews on which it is based, has been the variation in use of different process and outcome measures in different trials, particularly assessment of pain and its relief, and effects on the neonate after birth. This made it difficult to pool results from otherwise similar studies, and to derive conclusions from the totality of evidence. Other important outcomes have simply not been assessed in trials; thus, despite concerns for 30 years or more about the effects of maternal opioid administration during labour on subsequent neonatal behaviour and its influence on breastfeeding, only two out of 57 trials of opioids reported breastfeeding as an outcome. We therefore strongly recommend that the outcome measures, agreed through wide consultation for this project, are used in all future trials of methods of pain management.

Respiratory morbidity including respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is a serious complication of preterm birth and the primary cause of early neonatal mortality and disability. Despite early evidence indicating a beneficial effect of antenatal corticosteroids on fetal lung maturation and widespread recommendations to use this treatment in women at risk of preterm delivery, some uncertainty remains about their effectiveness particularly with regard to their use in lower-resource settings, different gestational ages and high-risk obstetric groups such as women with hypertension or multiple pregnancies. This updated review (which supersedes an earlier review Crowley 1996) was first published in 2006 and subsequently updated in 2017.

Background Iron and folic acid supplementation has been the preferred intervention to improve iron stores and prevent anaemia among pregnant women, and it is thought to improve other maternal and birth outcomes. Objectives To assess the effects of daily oral iron supplements for pregnant women, either alone or in conjunction with folic acid, or with other vitamins and minerals as a public health intervention in antenatal care. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (10 January 2015). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (26 February 2015) and contacted relevant organisations for the identification of ongoing and unpublished studies (26 February 2015) . Selection criteria Randomised or quasi‐randomised trials evaluating the effects of oral preventive supplementation with daily iron, iron + folic acid or iron + other vitamins and minerals during pregnancy. Data collection and analysis We assessed the methodological quality of trials using standard Cochrane criteria. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and conducted checks for accuracy. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence for primary outcomes. We anticipated high heterogeneity among trials and we pooled trial results using a random‐effects model and were cautious in our interpretation of the pooled results: the random‐effects model gives the average treatment effect. Main results We included 61 trials. Forty‐four trials, involving 43,274 women, contributed data and compared the effects of daily oral supplements containing iron versus no iron or placebo. Preventive iron supplementation reduced maternal anaemia at term by 70% (risk ratio (RR) 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.46, 14 trials, 2199 women, low quality evidence), iron‐deficiency anaemia at term (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.69, six trials, 1088 women), and iron deficiency at term by 57% (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.66, seven trials, 1256 women, low quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for severe anaemia in the second or third trimester, or maternal infection during pregnancy (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.20, nine trials, 2125 women, very low quality evidence; and, RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.33 to 4.46; one trial, 727 women, low quality evidence, respectively), or maternal mortality (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.19, two trials, 12,560 women, very low quality evidence), or reporting of side effects (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.83 to 2.02, 11 trials, 2423 women, very low quality evidence). Women receiving iron were on average more likely to have higher haemoglobin (Hb) concentrations at term and in the postpartum period, but were at increased risk of Hb concentrations greater than 130 g/L during pregnancy, and at term. Compared with controls, women taking iron supplements less frequently had low birthweight newborns (8.4% versus 10.3%, average RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.03, 11 trials, 17,613 women, low quality evidence), and preterm babies (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03, 13 trials, 19,286 women, moderate quality evidence). They appeared to also deliver slightly heavier babies (mean difference (MD) 23.75; 95% CI ‐3.02 to 50.51, 15 trials, 18,590 women, moderate quality evidence). None of these results were statistically significant. There were no clear differences between groups for neonatal death (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18, four trials, 16,603 infants, low quality evidence), or congenital anomalies (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.33, four trials, 14,636 infants, low quality evidence). Twenty‐three studies were conducted in countries that in 2011 had some malaria risk in parts of the country. In some of these countries/territories, malaria is present only in certain areas or up to a particular altitude. Only two of these studies reported malaria outcomes. There is no evidence that iron supplementation increases placental malaria. For some outcomes heterogeneity was higher than 50%. Authors' conclusions Supplementation reduces the risk of maternal anaemia and iron deficiency in pregnancy but the positive effect on other maternal and infant outcomes is less clear. Implementation of iron supplementation recommendations may produce heterogeneous results depending on the populations' background risk for low birthweight and anaemia, as well as the level of adherence to the intervention.

BACKGROUND: Premature birth carries substantial neonatal morbidity and mortality. Subclinical infection is associated with preterm rupture of membranes (PROM). Prophylactic maternal antibiotic therapy might lessen infectious morbidity and delay labour, but could suppress labour without treating underlying infection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the immediate and long-term effects of administering antibiotics to women with PROM before 37 weeks, on maternal infectious morbidity, neonatal morbidity and mortality, and longer-term childhood development. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing antibiotic administration with placebo that reported clinically relevant outcomes were included as were trials of different antibiotics. Trials in which no placebo was used were included for the outcome of perinatal death alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data from each report without blinding of either the results or the treatments that women received. We sought unpublished data from a number of authors. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 trials, involving 6872 women and babies.The use of antibiotics following PROM is associated with statistically significant reductions in chorioamnionitis (average risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.96, and a reduction in the numbers of babies born within 48 hours (average RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.87) and seven days of randomisation (average RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). The following markers of neonatal morbidity were reduced: neonatal infection (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.85), use of surfactant (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96), oxygen therapy (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96), and abnormal cerebral ultrasound scan prior to discharge from hospital (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98). Co-amoxiclav was associated with an increased risk of neonatal necrotising enterocolitis (RR 4.72, 95% CI 1.57 to 14.23).One study evaluated the children's health at seven years of age (ORACLE Children Study) and found antibiotics seemed to have little effect on the health of children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Routine prescription of antibiotics for women with preterm rupture of the membranes is associated with prolongation of pregnancy and improvements in a number of short-term neonatal morbidities, but no significant reduction in perinatal mortality. Despite lack of evidence of longer-term benefit in childhood, the advantages on short-term morbidities are such that we would recommend antibiotics are routinely prescribed. The antibiotic of choice is not clear but co-amoxiclav should be avoided in women due to increased risk of neonatal necrotising enterocolitis.

BACKGROUND: Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three copies of chromosome 21 (or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome) rather than two. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability. Non-invasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing. Before agreeing to screening tests, parents need to be fully informed about the risks, benefits and possible consequences of such a test. This includes subsequent choices for further tests they may face, and the implications of both false positive (i.e. invasive diagnostic testing, and the possibility that a miscarried fetus may be chromosomally normal) and false negative screening tests (i.e. a fetus with Down's syndrome will be missed). The decisions that may be faced by expectant parents inevitably engender a high level of anxiety at all stages of the screening process, and the outcomes of screening can be associated with considerable physical and psychological morbidity. No screening test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have. OBJECTIVES: To estimate and compare the accuracy of first and second trimester serum markers with and without first trimester ultrasound markers for the detection of Down's syndrome in the antenatal period, as combinations of markers. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a sensitive and comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), Embase (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (the Cochrane Library 25 August 2011), MEDION (25 August 2011), the Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine (25 August 2011), the National Research Register (Archived 2007), and Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (25 August 2011). We did not apply a diagnostic test search filter. We did forward citation searching in ISI citation indices, Google Scholar and PubMed 'related articles'. We also searched reference lists of retrieved articles SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies evaluating tests of combining first and second trimester maternal serum markers in women up to 24 weeks of gestation for Down's syndrome, with or without first trimester ultrasound markers, compared with a reference standard, either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted as test positive/test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. We investigated the impact of maternal age on test performance in subgroup analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (reported in 25 publications) involving 228,615 pregnancies (including 1067 with Down's syndrome) were included. Studies were generally high quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high risk pregnancies. Ten studies made direct comparisons between tests. Thirty-two different test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of eight different tests and maternal age; first trimester nuchal translucency (NT) and the serum markers AFP, uE3, total hCG, free βhCG, Inhibin A, PAPP-A and ADAM 12. We looked at tests combining first and second trimester markers with or without ultrasound as complete tests, and we also examined stepwise and contingent strategies.Meta-analysis of the six most frequently evaluated test combinations showed that a test strategy involving maternal age and a combination of first trimester NT and PAPP-A, and second trimester total hCG, uE3, AFP and Inhibin A significantly outperformed other test combinations that involved only one serum marker or NT in the first trimester, detecting about nine out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate. However, the evidence was limited in terms of the number of studies evaluating this strategy, and we therefore cannot recommend one single screening strategy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tests involving first trimester ultrasound with first and second trimester serum markers in combination with maternal age are significantly better than those without ultrasound, or those evaluating first trimester ultrasound in combination with second trimester serum markers, without first trimester serum markers. We cannot make recommendations about a specific strategy on the basis of the small number of studies available.

BACKGROUND: Optimal timing for clamping the umbilical cord at preterm birth is unclear. Early clamping allows for immediate transfer of the infant to the neonatologist. Delaying clamping allows blood flow between the placenta, the umbilical cord and the baby to continue. The blood which transfers to the baby between birth and cord clamping is called placental transfusion. Placental transfusion may improve circulating volume at birth, which may in turn improve outcome for preterm infants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the short- and long-term effects of early rather than delaying clamping or milking of the umbilical cord for infants born at less than 37 completed weeks' gestation, and their mothers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (31 May 2011). We updated this search on 26 June 2012 and added the results to the awaiting classification section. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing early with delayed clamping of the umbilical cord and other strategies to influence placental transfusion for births before 37 completed weeks' gestation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors assessed eligibility and trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen studies (738 infants) were eligible for inclusion. Participants were between 24 and 36 weeks' gestation at birth. The maximum delay in cord clamping was 180 seconds. Delaying cord clamping was associated with fewer infants requiring transfusions for anaemia (seven trials, 392 infants; risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.81), less intraventricular haemorrhage (ultrasound diagnosis all grades) 10 trials, 539 infants (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.85) and lower risk for necrotising enterocolitis (five trials, 241 infants, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.90) compared with immediate clamping. However, the peak bilirubin concentration was higher for infants allocated to delayed cord clamping compared with immediate clamping (seven trials, 320 infants, mean difference 15.01 mmol/L, 95% CI 5.62 to 24.40). For most other outcomes (including the primary outcomes infant death, severe (grade three to four) intraventricular haemorrhage and periventricular leukomalacia) there were no clear differences identified between groups; but for many there was incomplete reporting and wide CIs. Outcome after discharge from hospital was reported for one small study; there were no significant differences between the groups in mean Bayley II scores at age seven months (corrected for gestation at birth (58 children)).No studies reported outcomes for the women. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Providing additional placental blood to the preterm baby by either delaying cord clamping for 30 to 120 seconds, rather than early clamping, seems to be associated with less need for transfusion, better circulatory stability, less intraventricular haemorrhage (all grades) and lower risk for necrotising enterocolitis. However, there were insufficient data for reliable conclusions about the comparative effects on any of the primary outcomes for this review.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence to suggest that the broad discrepancy in the ratio of males to females with diagnosed ADHD is due, at least in part, to lack of recognition and/or referral bias in females. Studies suggest that females with ADHD present with differences in their profile of symptoms, comorbidity and associated functioning compared with males. This consensus aims to provide a better understanding of females with ADHD in order to improve recognition and referral. Comprehensive assessment and appropriate treatment is hoped to enhance longer-term clinical outcomes and patient wellbeing for females with ADHD. METHODS: The United Kingdom ADHD Partnership hosted a meeting of experts to discuss symptom presentation, triggers for referral, assessment, treatment and multi-agency liaison for females with ADHD across the lifespan. RESULTS: A consensus was reached offering practical guidance to support medical and mental health practitioners working with females with ADHD. The potential challenges of working with this patient group were identified, as well as specific barriers that may hinder recognition. These included symptomatic differences, gender biases, comorbidities and the compensatory strategies that may mask or overshadow underlying symptoms of ADHD. Furthermore, we determined the broader needs of these patients and considered how multi-agency liaison may provide the support to meet them. CONCLUSIONS: This practical approach based upon expert consensus will inform effective identification, treatment and support of girls and women with ADHD. It is important to move away from the prevalent perspective that ADHD is a behavioural disorder and attend to the more subtle and/or internalised presentation that is common in females. It is essential to adopt a lifespan model of care to support the complex transitions experienced by females that occur in parallel to change in clinical presentation and social circumstances. Treatment with pharmacological and psychological interventions is expected to have a positive impact leading to increased productivity, decreased resource utilization and most importantly, improved long-term outcomes for girls and women.