ANZJOG 64(2)主编简介

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Scott W. WHITE
{"title":"ANZJOG 64(2)主编简介","authors":"Scott W. WHITE","doi":"10.1111/ajo.13818","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Welcome to the April 2024 issue of <i>ANZJOG</i>. Thank you to the many contributors to <i>ANZJOG</i> who have submitted manuscripts and contributed to the peer review process as this maintains the journal as a source of robust clinical science for clinicians and researchers in Australia and New Zealand and further afield.</p><p>This issue begins with two stimulating articles about severe maternal morbidity. Most of us are fortunate to live and work in locations with historically low rates of maternal mortality, although there remain lessons to be learned and improvements to be made from the rare but tragic maternal deaths that still occur. Although there are robust and well-resourced processes for review of maternal mortality, the recognition, review and reporting of severe maternal morbidity are much less systematic, resulting in missed opportunities for the detection and improvement of system-level weaknesses which underlie preventable severe adverse maternal outcomes. The review by Frost et al. provides an excellent overview of the current situation of maternal morbidity review in Australia. The authors conclude by outlining a number of key steps towards implementing a systematic maternal morbidity review jurisdictionally and nationally.<span><sup>1</sup></span> In their editorial, MacDonald et al. go further, calling upon us, clinicians and researchers, to make the case for progress in this area and to drive it.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Major change will require policy and resource attention from government, but we can take valuable action prior to that: to demonstrate why this is important, our willingness to work towards improvements in maternal and related health outcomes and to spur policymakers into action.</p><p>This issue also includes reports of two randomised controlled trials. Fahy et al. present their trial of placental cord drainage at caesarean section.<span><sup>3</sup></span> This practice has been shown to reduce the duration of the third stage of labour at vaginal birth although without a clinically significant reduction in blood loss. The authors compared placental cord drainage to delayed cord clamping at planned caesarean section, finding no significant differences between the two groups, and concluded that this study supports the routine use of delayed cord clamping.</p><p>The second trial compared sonographer-performed ultrasound-guided embryo transfer versus standard embryo transfer, including rates of intrauterine air bubble visualisation, clinical pregnancy and live birth as outcomes.<span><sup>4</sup></span> Of these, only air bubble visualisation was significantly different between the groups, with sonographer-performed ultrasound proving beneficial. Given the resource implications of sonographer assistance and the lack of impact on clinical outcomes, this study does not provide compelling evidence to change standard practice in routine cases.</p><p>Two groups present systematic reviews of gynaecological interest. Steele et al. assessed the outcomes after negative diagnostic laparoscopy in women with persistent pelvic pain.<span><sup>5</sup></span> What limited evidence exists is conflicting, with studies demonstrating both improvement and deterioration in symptoms and quality of life after negative laparoscopy. The review identifies research gaps worthy of attention in the quest to better care for patients with what is frequently a debilitating and difficulty-to-manage condition.</p><p>Field et al. present their review of obstetric complications in pregnancies conceived using fresh versus natural thaw versus artificial thaw embryo transfer.<span><sup>6</sup></span> This is an important undertaking, recognising the importance of assessing outcomes other than pregnancy and live birth rates given the clear associations between adverse late-pregnancy outcomes and long-term health consequences for both mother and offspring. The significant differences in adverse pregnancy outcomes observed between embryo transfer methods warrant further assessment to determine how assisted reproductive techniques should best be employed to ensure not only pregnancies but also healthy pregnancies.</p><p>White et al. present the concerning findings of their study on knowledge of clitoral anatomy among various groups of health professionals.<span><sup>7</sup></span> With not a single respondent of 50 surveyed clinicians, notably including 10 consultant gynaecologists, able to name all of the major anatomical components of the clitoris and over half not able to name a single structure, it is clear that we have a long way to go in redressing the historical disregard of female sexual function.</p><p>This issue contains two articles relating to important aspects of stillbirth. The first examines the variation in causes of stillbirth in an ethnically diverse maternity service, finding placental-mediated stillbirths to be relatively overrepresented among stillbirth causes in non-Caucasian women.<span><sup>8</sup></span> This finding is important as it provides insight into the mechanism of the observed increased rates of stillbirth, particularly late stillbirth, in non-Caucasian women and what strategies may be implemented to better identify fetuses at risk who can be targeted for increased surveillance or other preventative measures.</p><p>The second article provides information reading the intrapartum experiences of couples with antenatally recognised stillbirths.<span><sup>9</sup></span> Although this evidence suggests that there is scope for improvement in care of these families, it is reassuring that the themes identified correlate closely with the existing clinical guidelines for bereavement care. It seems, therefore, that improvements in bereavement care are likely achievable with further education and implementation of existing resources.</p><p>I trust that you will find these and the other articles in this issue interesting.</p>","PeriodicalId":55429,"journal":{"name":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajo.13818","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Editor-in-chief's introduction to ANZJOG 64(2)\",\"authors\":\"Scott W. WHITE\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajo.13818\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Welcome to the April 2024 issue of <i>ANZJOG</i>. Thank you to the many contributors to <i>ANZJOG</i> who have submitted manuscripts and contributed to the peer review process as this maintains the journal as a source of robust clinical science for clinicians and researchers in Australia and New Zealand and further afield.</p><p>This issue begins with two stimulating articles about severe maternal morbidity. Most of us are fortunate to live and work in locations with historically low rates of maternal mortality, although there remain lessons to be learned and improvements to be made from the rare but tragic maternal deaths that still occur. Although there are robust and well-resourced processes for review of maternal mortality, the recognition, review and reporting of severe maternal morbidity are much less systematic, resulting in missed opportunities for the detection and improvement of system-level weaknesses which underlie preventable severe adverse maternal outcomes. The review by Frost et al. provides an excellent overview of the current situation of maternal morbidity review in Australia. The authors conclude by outlining a number of key steps towards implementing a systematic maternal morbidity review jurisdictionally and nationally.<span><sup>1</sup></span> In their editorial, MacDonald et al. go further, calling upon us, clinicians and researchers, to make the case for progress in this area and to drive it.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Major change will require policy and resource attention from government, but we can take valuable action prior to that: to demonstrate why this is important, our willingness to work towards improvements in maternal and related health outcomes and to spur policymakers into action.</p><p>This issue also includes reports of two randomised controlled trials. Fahy et al. present their trial of placental cord drainage at caesarean section.<span><sup>3</sup></span> This practice has been shown to reduce the duration of the third stage of labour at vaginal birth although without a clinically significant reduction in blood loss. The authors compared placental cord drainage to delayed cord clamping at planned caesarean section, finding no significant differences between the two groups, and concluded that this study supports the routine use of delayed cord clamping.</p><p>The second trial compared sonographer-performed ultrasound-guided embryo transfer versus standard embryo transfer, including rates of intrauterine air bubble visualisation, clinical pregnancy and live birth as outcomes.<span><sup>4</sup></span> Of these, only air bubble visualisation was significantly different between the groups, with sonographer-performed ultrasound proving beneficial. Given the resource implications of sonographer assistance and the lack of impact on clinical outcomes, this study does not provide compelling evidence to change standard practice in routine cases.</p><p>Two groups present systematic reviews of gynaecological interest. Steele et al. assessed the outcomes after negative diagnostic laparoscopy in women with persistent pelvic pain.<span><sup>5</sup></span> What limited evidence exists is conflicting, with studies demonstrating both improvement and deterioration in symptoms and quality of life after negative laparoscopy. The review identifies research gaps worthy of attention in the quest to better care for patients with what is frequently a debilitating and difficulty-to-manage condition.</p><p>Field et al. present their review of obstetric complications in pregnancies conceived using fresh versus natural thaw versus artificial thaw embryo transfer.<span><sup>6</sup></span> This is an important undertaking, recognising the importance of assessing outcomes other than pregnancy and live birth rates given the clear associations between adverse late-pregnancy outcomes and long-term health consequences for both mother and offspring. The significant differences in adverse pregnancy outcomes observed between embryo transfer methods warrant further assessment to determine how assisted reproductive techniques should best be employed to ensure not only pregnancies but also healthy pregnancies.</p><p>White et al. present the concerning findings of their study on knowledge of clitoral anatomy among various groups of health professionals.<span><sup>7</sup></span> With not a single respondent of 50 surveyed clinicians, notably including 10 consultant gynaecologists, able to name all of the major anatomical components of the clitoris and over half not able to name a single structure, it is clear that we have a long way to go in redressing the historical disregard of female sexual function.</p><p>This issue contains two articles relating to important aspects of stillbirth. The first examines the variation in causes of stillbirth in an ethnically diverse maternity service, finding placental-mediated stillbirths to be relatively overrepresented among stillbirth causes in non-Caucasian women.<span><sup>8</sup></span> This finding is important as it provides insight into the mechanism of the observed increased rates of stillbirth, particularly late stillbirth, in non-Caucasian women and what strategies may be implemented to better identify fetuses at risk who can be targeted for increased surveillance or other preventative measures.</p><p>The second article provides information reading the intrapartum experiences of couples with antenatally recognised stillbirths.<span><sup>9</sup></span> Although this evidence suggests that there is scope for improvement in care of these families, it is reassuring that the themes identified correlate closely with the existing clinical guidelines for bereavement care. It seems, therefore, that improvements in bereavement care are likely achievable with further education and implementation of existing resources.</p><p>I trust that you will find these and the other articles in this issue interesting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajo.13818\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajo.13818\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajo.13818","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

8 这一发现非常重要,因为它让我们了解到非高加索妇女死产率(尤其是晚期死产率)上升的机理,以及可以采取哪些策略来更好地识别高风险胎儿,从而有针对性地加强监测或采取其他预防措施。9 尽管这些证据表明,对这些家庭的护理还有待改进,但令人欣慰的是,所发现的主题与现有的丧亲护理临床指南密切相关。由此看来,通过进一步的教育和现有资源的实施,丧亲护理的改善是有可能实现的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Editor-in-chief's introduction to ANZJOG 64(2)

Welcome to the April 2024 issue of ANZJOG. Thank you to the many contributors to ANZJOG who have submitted manuscripts and contributed to the peer review process as this maintains the journal as a source of robust clinical science for clinicians and researchers in Australia and New Zealand and further afield.

This issue begins with two stimulating articles about severe maternal morbidity. Most of us are fortunate to live and work in locations with historically low rates of maternal mortality, although there remain lessons to be learned and improvements to be made from the rare but tragic maternal deaths that still occur. Although there are robust and well-resourced processes for review of maternal mortality, the recognition, review and reporting of severe maternal morbidity are much less systematic, resulting in missed opportunities for the detection and improvement of system-level weaknesses which underlie preventable severe adverse maternal outcomes. The review by Frost et al. provides an excellent overview of the current situation of maternal morbidity review in Australia. The authors conclude by outlining a number of key steps towards implementing a systematic maternal morbidity review jurisdictionally and nationally.1 In their editorial, MacDonald et al. go further, calling upon us, clinicians and researchers, to make the case for progress in this area and to drive it.2 Major change will require policy and resource attention from government, but we can take valuable action prior to that: to demonstrate why this is important, our willingness to work towards improvements in maternal and related health outcomes and to spur policymakers into action.

This issue also includes reports of two randomised controlled trials. Fahy et al. present their trial of placental cord drainage at caesarean section.3 This practice has been shown to reduce the duration of the third stage of labour at vaginal birth although without a clinically significant reduction in blood loss. The authors compared placental cord drainage to delayed cord clamping at planned caesarean section, finding no significant differences between the two groups, and concluded that this study supports the routine use of delayed cord clamping.

The second trial compared sonographer-performed ultrasound-guided embryo transfer versus standard embryo transfer, including rates of intrauterine air bubble visualisation, clinical pregnancy and live birth as outcomes.4 Of these, only air bubble visualisation was significantly different between the groups, with sonographer-performed ultrasound proving beneficial. Given the resource implications of sonographer assistance and the lack of impact on clinical outcomes, this study does not provide compelling evidence to change standard practice in routine cases.

Two groups present systematic reviews of gynaecological interest. Steele et al. assessed the outcomes after negative diagnostic laparoscopy in women with persistent pelvic pain.5 What limited evidence exists is conflicting, with studies demonstrating both improvement and deterioration in symptoms and quality of life after negative laparoscopy. The review identifies research gaps worthy of attention in the quest to better care for patients with what is frequently a debilitating and difficulty-to-manage condition.

Field et al. present their review of obstetric complications in pregnancies conceived using fresh versus natural thaw versus artificial thaw embryo transfer.6 This is an important undertaking, recognising the importance of assessing outcomes other than pregnancy and live birth rates given the clear associations between adverse late-pregnancy outcomes and long-term health consequences for both mother and offspring. The significant differences in adverse pregnancy outcomes observed between embryo transfer methods warrant further assessment to determine how assisted reproductive techniques should best be employed to ensure not only pregnancies but also healthy pregnancies.

White et al. present the concerning findings of their study on knowledge of clitoral anatomy among various groups of health professionals.7 With not a single respondent of 50 surveyed clinicians, notably including 10 consultant gynaecologists, able to name all of the major anatomical components of the clitoris and over half not able to name a single structure, it is clear that we have a long way to go in redressing the historical disregard of female sexual function.

This issue contains two articles relating to important aspects of stillbirth. The first examines the variation in causes of stillbirth in an ethnically diverse maternity service, finding placental-mediated stillbirths to be relatively overrepresented among stillbirth causes in non-Caucasian women.8 This finding is important as it provides insight into the mechanism of the observed increased rates of stillbirth, particularly late stillbirth, in non-Caucasian women and what strategies may be implemented to better identify fetuses at risk who can be targeted for increased surveillance or other preventative measures.

The second article provides information reading the intrapartum experiences of couples with antenatally recognised stillbirths.9 Although this evidence suggests that there is scope for improvement in care of these families, it is reassuring that the themes identified correlate closely with the existing clinical guidelines for bereavement care. It seems, therefore, that improvements in bereavement care are likely achievable with further education and implementation of existing resources.

I trust that you will find these and the other articles in this issue interesting.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
165
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ANZJOG) is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) and the RANZCOG Research foundation. ANZJOG aims to provide a medium for the publication of original contributions to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of obstetrics and gynaecology and related disciplines. Articles are peer reviewed by clinicians or researchers expert in the field of the submitted work. From time to time the journal will also publish printed abstracts from the RANZCOG Annual Scientific Meeting and meetings of relevant special interest groups, where the accepted abstracts have undergone the journals peer review acceptance process.
×
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