scholarly journals Maternal and neonatal outcomes with mechanical cervical dilation plus misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone for cervical ripening; a systematic review of literature and metaanalysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Nasioudis ◽  
Sun Woo Kim ◽  
Corina Schoen ◽  
Lisa D. Levine
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
semagn Abate ◽  
Getachew Mergia ◽  
Bivash Basu

Abstract Background: preeclampsia is very challenging for anesthetists due to the heterogeneous clinical spectrum of the disease characterized by hypertension, risk of hypotension, high risk of aspiration, and difficult airway. Therefore, the Meta-Analysis is intended to provide evidence on maternal and neonatal outcomes of preeclamptic parturient. Methods: A comprehensive strategy was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Science Direct, and Cochrane from January 2000 to May 2020 without language restriction. The Heterogeneity among the included studies was checked with forest plot and I2 test. Observational and experimental studies reporting maternal and neonatal outcomes among preeclamptic and normotensive women were included. Results: The Meta-Analysis revealed that pooled incidence of hypotension was reduced by thirty-eight percent in preeclamptic as compared to normotensive parturient, RR=0.62(95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52 to 0.75)Conclusion: The Meta-Analysis revealed that the incidence of hypotension was lower in preeclamptic women when compared to normotensive women. The included studies were low to a very low quality of evidence which entails further randomized controlled trials.Registration: This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in Open science Network on June 6, 2020, and the registration is available at https://osf.io/jcedt/.


2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (9) ◽  
pp. 1208-1218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordana Leader ◽  
Amrit Bajwa ◽  
Andrea Lanes ◽  
Xiaolin Hua ◽  
Ruth Rennicks White ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e036852
Author(s):  
Reem Saleem Malouf ◽  
Claire Tomlinson ◽  
Jane Henderson ◽  
Charles Opondo ◽  
Peter Brocklehurst ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo systematically review (1) The effect of obstetric unit (OU) closures on maternal and neonatal outcomes and (2) The association between travel distance/time to an OU and maternal and neonatal outcomes.DesignSystematic review of any quantitative studies with a comparison group.Data sourcesEmbase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health and grey literature were searched.MethodsEligible studies explored the impact of closure of an OU or the effect of travel distance/time on prespecified maternal or neonatal outcomes. Only studies of women giving birth in high-income countries with universal health coverage of maternity services comparable to the UK were included. Identification of studies, extraction of data and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by at least two reviewers independently. The risk of bias checklist was based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Heterogeneity across studies precluded meta-analysis and synthesis was narrative, with key findings tabulated.Results31 studies met the inclusion criteria. There was some evidence to suggest an increase in babies born before arrival following OU closures and/or associated with longer travel distances or time. This may be associated with an increased risk of perinatal or neonatal mortality, but this finding was not consistent across studies. Evidence on other maternal and neonatal outcomes was limited but did not suggest worse outcomes after closures or with longer travel times/distances. Interpretation of findings for some studies was hampered by concerns around how accurately exposures were measured, and/or a lack of adjustment for confounders or temporal changes.ConclusionIt is not possible to conclude from this review whether OU closure, increased travel distances or times are associated with worse outcomes for the mother or the baby.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017078503.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 241
Author(s):  
RoopaSatyanarayan Basutkar ◽  
Shonitha Sagadevan ◽  
Oorvashree Sri Hari ◽  
MohamedJahangir Sirajudeen ◽  
Gopi Ramalingam

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document