New labor management and obstetric outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Xiaoqin He, Xiao-jian Jia, Xiaojing Zeng, Jianxia Fan, Jun Zhang
{"title":"New labor management and obstetric outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Xiaoqin He, Xiao-jian Jia, Xiaojing Zeng, Jianxia Fan, Jun Zhang","doi":"10.54844/prm.2023.0319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the new labor management guideline with the traditional WHO guideline with regard to obstetric outcomes. Methods: The literature search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and Chinese databases (including CNKI, WanFang Database and VIP). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies comparing the new labor management and the old WHO guideline in terms of maternal and neonatal morbidity in low-risk pregnant women were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Bias Evaluation Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The I2 statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity. We used the random-effects model to pool the relative risk (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the potential influencing factors. Publication bias analysis was also assessed based on funnel plots. Results: A total of 45 studies with a total sample size of 82,016 women were eventually included, with 15 RCTs and 30 cohort studies. 44 studies were included for data synthesis. Women with new labor management had less labor augmentation with oxytocin (RCTs: RR = 0.55 [0.36, 0.83], I2 = 47%; cohort studies: RR = 0.62 [0.55, 0.70], I2 = 58%), intrapartum cesarean section (RCTs: RR = 0.52 [0.47, 0.59], I2 = 0; cohort studies: RR = 0.61 [0.55, 0.67], I2= 75%) and operative vaginal delivery (RCTs: RR = 0.60 [0.42, 0.87], I2 = 0; cohort studies: RR = 0.69 [0.55, 0.86], I2 = 82%) without increasing the incidence of 3rd- and 4th-degree perineal laceration, postpartum hemorrhage, infectious morbidity and postpartum urine retention, fetal distress, neonatal asphyxia or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Our study indicates that the new labor management guideline may be more beneficial than the traditional WHO guideline, with fewer intrapartum interventions and no increase in adverse obstetric outcomes.","PeriodicalId":74455,"journal":{"name":"Placenta and reproductive medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Placenta and reproductive medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54844/prm.2023.0319","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the new labor management guideline with the traditional WHO guideline with regard to obstetric outcomes. Methods: The literature search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and Chinese databases (including CNKI, WanFang Database and VIP). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies comparing the new labor management and the old WHO guideline in terms of maternal and neonatal morbidity in low-risk pregnant women were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Bias Evaluation Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The I2 statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity. We used the random-effects model to pool the relative risk (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the potential influencing factors. Publication bias analysis was also assessed based on funnel plots. Results: A total of 45 studies with a total sample size of 82,016 women were eventually included, with 15 RCTs and 30 cohort studies. 44 studies were included for data synthesis. Women with new labor management had less labor augmentation with oxytocin (RCTs: RR = 0.55 [0.36, 0.83], I2 = 47%; cohort studies: RR = 0.62 [0.55, 0.70], I2 = 58%), intrapartum cesarean section (RCTs: RR = 0.52 [0.47, 0.59], I2 = 0; cohort studies: RR = 0.61 [0.55, 0.67], I2= 75%) and operative vaginal delivery (RCTs: RR = 0.60 [0.42, 0.87], I2 = 0; cohort studies: RR = 0.69 [0.55, 0.86], I2 = 82%) without increasing the incidence of 3rd- and 4th-degree perineal laceration, postpartum hemorrhage, infectious morbidity and postpartum urine retention, fetal distress, neonatal asphyxia or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Our study indicates that the new labor management guideline may be more beneficial than the traditional WHO guideline, with fewer intrapartum interventions and no increase in adverse obstetric outcomes.
新的劳动管理和产科结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析
目的:本系统回顾和荟萃分析是比较新的分娩管理指南与传统的WHO指南在产科结局方面的差异。方法:在PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library和中文数据库(包括CNKI、万方数据库、VIP)中进行文献检索。纳入比较新分娩管理和旧WHO指南在低危孕妇孕产妇和新生儿发病率方面的随机对照试验(rct)或队列研究。采用Cochrane风险偏倚评估工具和Newcastle-Ottawa量表(NOS)评估研究质量。采用I2统计量评价异质性。我们使用随机效应模型将相对风险(RR)与相应的95%置信区间(CI)合并。通过预先设定的亚组和敏感性分析来探讨潜在的影响因素。发表偏倚分析也基于漏斗图进行评估。结果:最终纳入了45项研究,总样本量为82016名女性,其中15项随机对照试验和30项队列研究。44项研究纳入数据综合。新分娩管理妇女使用催产素增加产程较少(rct: RR = 0.55 [0.36, 0.83], I2 = 47%;队列研究:RR = 0.62 [0.55, 0.70], I2 = 58%),产时剖宫产(rct: RR = 0.52 [0.47, 0.59], I2 = 0;队列研究:RR = 0.61 [0.55, 0.67], I2= 75%)和阴道手术分娩(rct: RR = 0.60 [0.42, 0.87], I2= 0;队列研究:RR = 0.69 [0.55, 0.86], I2 = 82%),不增加三、四度会阴撕裂伤、产后出血、感染性发病率和产后尿潴留、胎儿窘迫、新生儿窒息或新生儿重症监护病房(NICU)入院的发生率。这些结果对敏感性分析是稳健的。结论:我们的研究表明,新的分娩管理指南可能比传统的世卫组织指南更有益,分娩时干预更少,不良产科结局没有增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信