scholarly journals Lubricant for Reducing Perineal Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author(s):  
Qiuyu Yang ◽  
Xiao Cao ◽  
Shasha Hu ◽  
Mingyao Sun ◽  
Honghao Lai ◽  
...  

Background Different techniques have been reported to prevent perineal lacerations, but the effects of the use of lubricant have been unclear and is still subject of debate. Objective To assess the effect of lubricants on reducing perineal trauma during vaginal delivery. Search strategy PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), WanFang databases, ClinicalTrials.gov in 25 June 2021. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials published in English or Chinese that compared the vaginal application of lubricant with standard care in women with cephalic presentation at vaginal delivery were included . Data collection and analysis Two independent reviewers selected eligible trials and extracted data on perineal trauma, duration of the second-stage labor, postpartum hemorrhage and Apgar score for meta-analysis. Main results Nineteen trials enrolling 5445 pregnant women were included. Compared with standard care, women using lubricants had a lower incidence of perineal trauma (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.76 to 0.93), second-degree perineal laceration (RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.64 to 0.82) and episiotomy (RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.62 to 0.96), had a shorter duration of the second-stage labor (MD -13.72 minutes, 95%CI -22.68 to -4.77). Subgroup analysis indicated that women with obstetric gel had a shorter duration of the second-stage (MD -16.9 minutes, 95%CI -27.03 to -6.78 vs MD -8.38 minutes, 95%CI -11.11 to -5.65; P interaction=0.02) when compared with liquid wax. Conclusions Compared with standard care, lubricants could reduce the incidence of perineal trauma, especially second-degree perineal laceration, and shorten the duration of the second-stage labor.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahman Amani ◽  
Ahmad Khanijahani ◽  
Behnam Amani

AbstractBackground & ObjectiveThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease COVID-19 pandemic is disputed. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ plus the standard of care in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and web of sciences were searched up to June 1, 2020. The references list of the key studies was reviewed for additional relevant resources. Clinical studies registry databases were searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3).ResultsThree randomized controlled trials with total number of 242 patients were identified eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between HCQ and standard care in terms of viral clearance (Risk ratio [RR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91, 1.16; P = 0.68), disease progression (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.81; P = 0.94), Chest CT (RR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.91; P = 0.03). There is a significant difference between HCQ and standard care for adverse events (RR = 2.88; 95% CI = 1.50, 5.54; P = 0.002).ConclusionAlthough the current meta-analysis failed to confirm the efficacy and safety of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, further rigorous randomized clinical trials are necessary to evaluate conclusively the efficacy and safety of HCQ against COVID-19.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (9) ◽  
pp. 1735-1745
Author(s):  
Ahmed Mohamed Abdelhakim ◽  
Elsayed Eldesouky ◽  
Ibrahim Abo Elmagd ◽  
Attia Mohammed ◽  
Elsayed Aly Farag ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document