Dataset Information

Endometriosis and adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: STUDY QUESTION:How is endometriosis associated with adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes of pregnancy? SUMMARY ANSWER:Women with endometriosis are at elevated risk for serious and important adverse maternal (pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, placenta praevia and Cesarean section) and fetal or neonatal outcomes (preterm birth, PPROM, small for gestational age, stillbirth and neonatal death). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:A number of studies have shown an association between endometriosis and certain adverse maternal and fetal outcomes, but the results have been conflicting with potential for confounding by the use of assisted reproductive technology. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies (1 January 1990-31 December 2017) that evaluated the effect of endometriosis on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes was conducted. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:Studies were considered for inclusion if they were prospective or retrospective cohort or case-control studies; included women greater than 20 weeks gestational age with endometriosis; included a control group of gravid women without endometriosis; and, reported at least one of the outcomes of interest. Each study was reviewed for inclusion, data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:The search strategy identified 33 studies (sample size, n = 3 280 488) for inclusion. Compared with women without endometriosis, women with endometriosis had higher odds of pre-eclampsia (odds ratio [OR] = 1.18 [1.01-1.39]), gestational hypertension and/or pre-eclampsia (OR = 1.21 [1.05-1.39]), gestational diabetes (OR = 1.26 [1.03-1.55]), gestational cholestasis (OR = 4.87 [1.85-12.83]), placenta praevia (OR = 3.31 [2.37, 4.63]), antepartum hemorrhage (OR = 1.69 [1.38-2.07]), antepartum hospital admissions (OR = 3.18 [2.60-3.87]), malpresentation (OR = 1.71 [1.34, 2.18]), labor dystocia (OR = 1.45 [1.04-2.01]) and cesarean section (OR = 1.86 [1.51-2.29]). Fetuses and neonates of women with endometriosis were also more likely to have preterm premature rupture of membranes (OR = 2.33 [1.39-3.90]), preterm birth (OR = 1.70 [1.40-2.06]), small for gestational age <10th% (OR = 1.28 [1.11-1.49]), NICU admission (OR = 1.39 [1.08-1.78]), stillbirth (OR = 1.29 [1.10, 1.52]) and neonatal death (MOR = 1.78 [1.46-2.16]). Among the subgroup of women who conceived spontaneously, endometriosis was found to be associated with placenta praevia, cesarean section, preterm birth and low birth weight. Among the subgroup of women who conceived with the use of assisted reproductive technology, endometriosis was found to be associated with placenta praevia and preterm birth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:As with any systematic review, the review is limited by the quality of the included studies. The diagnosis for endometriosis and the selection of comparison groups were not uniform across studies. However, the effect of potential misclassification would be bias towards the null hypothesis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:The association between endometriosis with the important and serious pregnancy outcomes observed in our meta-analysis, in particular stillbirth and neonatal death, is concerning and warrants further studies to elucidate the mechanisms for the observed findings. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):Dr Shifana Lalani is supported by a Physicians' Services Incorporated Foundation Research Grant, and Dr Innie Chen is supported by a University of Ottawa Clinical Research Chair in Reproductive Population Health and Health Services. Dr Singh declares conflicts of interests with Bayer, Abvie, Allergan and Cooper Surgical. All other authors have no conflicts of interests to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO CRD42015013911.

SUBMITTER: Lalani S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6145420 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Endometriosis and adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lalani S S Choudhry A J AJ Firth B B Bacal V V Walker Mark M Wen S W SW Singh S S Amath A A Hodge M M Chen I I

Human reproduction (Oxford, England) 20181001 10

<h4>Study question</h4>How is endometriosis associated with adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes of pregnancy?<h4>Summary answer</h4>Women with endometriosis are at elevated risk for serious and important adverse maternal (pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, placenta praevia and Cesarean section) and fetal or neonatal outcomes (preterm birth, PPROM, small for gestational age, stillbirth and neonatal death).<h4>What is known already</h4>A number of studies have shown an association betw ...[more]

PMID: 30239732

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and Objective: Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is a pathological condition in which the fetus cannot reach its expected growth potential. When it is diagnosed as a suspected FGR, it remains an unsolved problem whether to direct induction or continue expectant management. To effectively reduce the incidence of neonatal adverse outcomes, we aimed to evaluate whether either method was associated with a lower incidence of neonatal adverse outcomes. Methods: We searched the relevant literature through the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to January 10, 2020. We defined induction as the experimental group and expectant management as the control group. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models owing to heterogeneity. Furthermore, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to explore the robustness of the included literature. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) to evaluate the quality of the available studies. We applied the funnel plot to describe the publication bias. Additionally, subgroup analysis based on the study method, sample size, area, NOS score, Apgar score <7 at 5 min, definition of suspected FGR, severity, and neonatal adverse outcomes were performed to further evaluate the differences between the induction and expectant management. Results: Our study included a total of eight articles with 6,706 patients, which consisted of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three retrospective cohort studies, and one prospective cohort study. The total pooled OR and 95% CI between the induction group and the expected management group was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.84-2.28) in the random model. The heterogeneity was I 2 = 84%, P < 0.01. The sensitivity analysis showed that the neonatal adverse outcomes of induction vs. expectant management still presented similar outcomes after omitting of any one of these studies. The funnel plot and linear regression equation showed that there was no publication bias in our study (P = 0.75). Subgroup analysis showed that induction increased the neonatal adverse outcome risks of hypoglycemia and respiratory insufficiency (ORneonatal hypoglycaemia = 8.76, 95% CI: 2.57-29.90; ORrespiratory insufficiency = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.35-2.24, respectively). However, no significant differences were observed based on the other subgroups (all P > 0.05). Conclusion: Regardless of induction or expectant management of a suspected FGR, the neonatal adverse outcomes showed no obvious differences. More studies should be conducted and confounding factors should be taken into consideration to elucidate the differential outcomes of the two approaches for suspected FGR.

Project description:BackgroundTo solve the disadvantages of traditional fetal monitoring such as time-consuming, cumbersome steps and low coverage, it is paramount to develop remote fetal monitoring. Remote fetal monitoring expands time and space, which is expected to popularize fetal monitoring in remote areas with the low availability of health services. Pregnant women can transmit fetal monitoring data from remote monitoring terminals to the central monitoring station so that doctors can interpret it remotely and detect fetal hypoxia in time. Fetal monitoring involving remote technology has also been carried out, but with some conflicting results.ObjectiveThe review aimed to (1) examine the efficacy of remote fetal monitoring in improving maternal-fetal outcomes and (2) identify research gaps in the field to make recommendations for future research.MethodsWe did a systematic literature search with PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Open Grey in March 2022. Randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental trials of remote fetal monitoring were identified. Two reviewers independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed each study. Primary outcomes (maternal-fetal outcomes) and secondary outcomes (health care usage) were presented as relative risks or mean difference. The review was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020165038.ResultsOf the 9337 retrieved literature, 9 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (n=1128). Compared with a control group, remote fetal monitoring reduced the risk of neonatal asphyxia (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.45-0.97; P=.04), with a low heterogeneity of 24%. Other maternal-fetal outcomes did not differ significantly between remote fetal monitoring and routine fetal monitoring, such as cesarean section (P=.21; I2=0%), induced labor (P=.50; I2=0%), instrumental vaginal birth (P=.45; I2=0%), spontaneous delivery (P=.85; I2=0%), gestational weeks at delivery (P=.35; I2=0%), premature delivery (P=.47; I2=0%), and low birth weight (P=.71; I2=0%). Only 2 studies performed a cost analysis, stating that remote fetal monitoring can contribute to reductions in health care costs when compared with conventional care. In addition, remote fetal monitoring might affect the number of visits and duration in the hospital, but it was not possible to draw definite conclusions about the effects due to the limited number of studies.ConclusionsRemote fetal monitoring seems to reduce the incidence of neonatal asphyxia and health care costs compared with routine fetal monitoring. To strengthen the claims on the efficacy of remote fetal monitoring, further well-designed studies are necessary, especially in high-risk pregnant women, such as pregnant women with diabetes, pregnant women with hypertension, and so forth.

Project description:ObjectivesThe low COVID-19 vaccine uptake rate among pregnant women is mainly due to safety concerns about COVID-19 vaccines due to limited safety evidence. Our goal was to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy with up-to-date evidence.MethodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov was performed on April 5th, 2022, and updated on May 25th, 2022. Studies evaluating the association of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently performed the risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed to pool outcome data.ResultsForty-three observational studies were included. COVID-19 vaccination [96,384 (73.9%) BNT162b2, 30,889 (23.7%) mRNA-1273, and 3,172 (2.4%) other types] during pregnancy [23,721 (18.3%) in the first trimester, 52,778 (40.5%) in the second trimester, and 53,886 (41.2%) in the third trimester].was associated with reduced risks of stillbirth or neonatal death (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92). Sensitivity analysis restricted to studies in participants without COVID-19 showed that the pooled effect was not robust. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with congenital anomalies (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.08), preterm birth (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06), NICU admission or hospitalization (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84-1.04), an Apgar score at 5 min <7 (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.01), low birth weight (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88-1.14), miscarriage (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.11), cesarean delivery (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.96-1.19), or postpartum hemorrhage (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81-1.01).ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with any of the adverse neonatal or maternal outcomes studied. Interpretation of study findings is limited by the types and timing of vaccination. The vaccinations in our study received during pregnancy were primarily mRNA vaccines administered in the second and third trimester. Future RCTs and meta-analysis are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022322525, identifier: PROSPERO, CRD42022322525.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is widespread, increasing use of magnesium sulphate in obstetric practice for pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and preterm fetal neuroprotection; benefit for preventing preterm labour and birth (tocolysis) is unproven. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether antenatal magnesium sulphate is associated with unintended adverse neonatal outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS:CINAHL, Cochrane Library, LILACS, MEDLINE, Embase, TOXLINE, and Web of Science, were searched (inceptions to 3 September 2019). Randomised, quasi-randomised, and non-randomised trials, cohort and case-control studies, and case reports assessing antenatal magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, fetal neuroprotection, or tocolysis, compared with placebo/no treatment or a different magnesium sulphate regimen, were included. The primary outcome was perinatal death. Secondary outcomes included pre-specified and non-pre-specified adverse neonatal outcomes. Two reviewers screened 5,890 articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias following Cochrane Handbook and RTI Item Bank guidance. For randomised trials, pooled risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated using fixed- or random-effects meta-analysis. Non-randomised data were tabulated and narratively summarised. We included 197 studies (40 randomised trials, 138 non-randomised studies, and 19 case reports), of mixed quality. The 40 trials (randomising 19,265 women and their babies) were conducted from 1987 to 2018 across high- (16 trials) and low/middle-income countries (23 trials) (1 mixed). Indications included pre-eclampsia/eclampsia (24 trials), fetal neuroprotection (7 trials), and tocolysis (9 trials); 18 trials compared magnesium sulphate with placebo/no treatment, and 22 compared different regimens. For perinatal death, no clear difference in randomised trials was observed between magnesium sulphate and placebo/no treatment (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.10; 8 trials, 13,654 babies), nor between regimens. Eleven of 138 non-randomised studies reported on perinatal death. Only 1 cohort (127 babies; moderate to high risk of bias) observed an increased risk of perinatal death with >48 versus ≤48 grams magnesium sulphate exposure for tocolysis. No clear secondary adverse neonatal outcomes were observed in randomised trials, and a very limited number of possible adverse outcomes warranting further consideration were identified in non-randomised studies. Where non-randomised studies observed possible harms, often no or few confounders were controlled for (moderate to high risk of bias), samples were small (200 babies or fewer), and/or results were from subgroup analyses. Limitations include missing data for important outcomes across most studies, heterogeneity of included studies, and inclusion of published data only. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings do not support clear associations between antenatal magnesium sulphate for beneficial indications and adverse neonatal outcomes. Further large, high-quality studies (prospective cohorts or individual participant data meta-analyses) assessing specific outcomes, or the impact of regimen, pregnancy, or birth characteristics on these outcomes, would further inform safety recommendations. PROSPERO: CRD42013004451.

Project description:BackgroundMaternal infection with cholera may negatively affect pregnancy outcomes. The objective of this research is to systematically review the literature and determine the risk of fetal, neonatal and maternal death associated with cholera during pregnancy.Materials and methodsMedline, Global Health Library, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the key terms cholera and pregnancy for articles published in any language and at any time before August 2013 to quantitatively summarize estimates of fetal, maternal, and neonatal mortality. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each selected study. Random-effect non-linear logistic regression was used to calculate pooled rates and 95% CIs by time period. Studies from the recent period (1991-2013) were compared with studies from 1969-1990. Relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% CIs were obtained by comparing mortality of selected recent studies with published national normative data from the closest year.ResultsThe meta-analysis included seven studies that together involved 737 pregnant women with cholera from six countries. The pooled fetal death rate for 4 studies during 1991-2013 was 7.9% (95% CIs 5.3-10.4), significantly lower than that of 3 studies from 1969-1990 (31.0%, 95% CIs 25.2-36.8). There was no difference in fetal death rate by trimester. The pooled neonatal death rate for 1991-2013 studies was 0.8% (95% CIs 0.0-1.6), and 6.4% (95% CIs 0.0-20.8) for 1969-1990. The pooled maternal death rate for 1991-2013 studies was 0.2% (95% CIs 0.0-0.7), and 5.0% (95% CIs 0.0-16.0) for 1969-1990. Compared with published national mortality estimates, the RR for fetal death of 5.8 (95% CIs 2.9-11.3) was calculated for Haiti (2013), 1.8 (95% CIs 0.3-10.4) for Senegal (2007), and 2.6 (95% CIs 0.5-14.9) for Peru (1991); there were no significant differences in the RR for neonatal or maternal death.ConclusionResults are limited by the inconsistencies found across included studies but suggest that maternal cholera is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, particularly fetal death. These findings can inform a research agenda on cholera in pregnancy and guidance for the timely management of pregnant women with cholera.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2019, 1 of 6 births was affected by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) globally. GDM results in adverse maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes in the short and long term, such as pregnancy and birth complications, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease. In the context of "transgenerational programming," diabetes mellitus during pregnancy can contribute to "programming" errors and long-term consequences for the child. Therefore, early therapy strategies are required to improve the clinical management of GDM. The interest in digital therapy approaches, such as telemetry, has increased because they are promising, innovative, and sustainable.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the current evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of telemetric interventions in the management of GDM, addressing maternal glycemic control, scheduled and unscheduled visits, satisfaction, diabetes self-efficacy, compliance, maternal complications in pregnancy and childbirth, as well as fetal and neonatal outcomes.MethodsMedline via PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched from January 2008 to April 2020. We included randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials in English and German. Study quality was assessed using "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" and "Effective Public Health Practice Project."ResultsOur search identified 1116 unique studies. Finally, we included 11 suitable studies (including a total of 563 patients and 2779 patient cases): 4 systematic reviews or meta-analyses (1 of high quality and 3 of moderate quality), 6 randomized controlled trials (2 of high quality and 4 of moderate quality), and 1 low-quality nonrandomized controlled trial. We classified 4 "asynchronous interventions" and 3 "asynchronous and real-time interventions." Our findings indicate that telemetric therapy clearly improves glycemic control and effectively reduces glycated hemoglobin A1c levels. Furthermore, in 1 study, telemetry proved to be a significant predictor for a better glycemic control (hazard ratio=1.71, 95% CI 1.11-2.65; P=.02), significantly fewer insulin titrations were required (P=.04), and glycemic control was achieved earlier. Telemetric therapy significantly reduced scheduled and unscheduled clinic visits effectively, and women were highly satisfied with the treatment (P<.05). From fetal and neonatal short-term outcomes, some improving tendencies in favor of telemetry were determined. No long-term outcomes were detected.ConclusionsTelemetric interventions clearly improved glycemic control, notably glycated hemoglobin A1c levels, and reduced scheduled and unscheduled clinic visits effectively, which reinforces this digital approach in the treatment of GDM.

Dataset Information

Endometriosis and adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Endometriosis and adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets