Association between gestational diabetes mellitus diagnostic criteria and adverse pregnancy outcomes-a systematic review and meta-analysis of adjusted effect sizes from studies using current diagnostic criteria.

To quantify the association between Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) and adverse pregnancy outcomes and primarily compare the associations between diagnostic criteria following the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommendations and non-IADPSG criteria, which use higher blood glucose cut-offs. Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies using contemporary GDM diagnostic criteria. PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched for articles published between 2010 and 2023. The search was carried out on 15 May 2023. Studies were included if they were observational studies that reported adjusted effect sizes for GDM-related adverse outcomes and compared outcomes between women with and without GDM, used contemporary diagnostic criteria and were conducted after 2010. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the MethodologicAl STandards for Epidemiological Research (MASTER) scale. Bias-adjusted inverse variance heterogeneity meta-analysis models were used to synthesise adjusted effect sizes. The same meta-analytic models were used to synthesise the overall OR and their 95% CIs for comparisons of the criteria which followed the IADPSG recommendations to other criteria, mostly with higher blood glucose cut-offs (non-IADPSG). We included 30 studies involving 642 355 participants. GDM was associated with higher odds of maternal outcomes, namely; caesarean section (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.51) and pregnancy-induced hypertension (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.34). GDM was associated with higher odds of neonatal outcomes, specifically; macrosomia (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.69), large for gestational age (aOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.63), preterm birth (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.64), neonatal intensive care unit admission (aOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.78), neonatal hypoglycaemia (aOR 3.08, 95% CI 1.80 to 5.26) and jaundice (aOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.91). Further analyses showed no major differences in adverse pregnancy outcomes between IADPSG and non-IADPSG criteria. GDM is consistently associated with adverse pregnancy, maternal and foetal outcomes, regardless of the diagnostic criteria used. These findings suggest no significant difference in risk between lower and higher blood glucose cut-offs used in GDM diagnosis.

Mahmoud E ，Elsayed AM ，Elsayed B ，Elsalakawi Y ，Gopinath A ，Chivese T ... -  《BMJ Open》

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

M.G. Showell, R. Mackenzie‐Proctor, V. Jordan, and R.J. Hart, “Antioxidants for Female Subfertility,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 8 (2020): CD007807, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub4 This Editorial Note is for the above article, published online on August 27, 2020, in Cochrane Library (cochranelibrary.com), and has been issued by the Publisher, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, in agreement with Cochrane. The Editorial note has been agreed due to concerns discovered by the Cochrane managing editor regarding the retraction of six studies in the Review (Badawy et al. 2006, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.097; El Refaeey et al. 2014, 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.011; El Sharkwy & Abd El Aziz 2019a, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12902; Gerli et al. 2007, https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202309_33752, full text: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/18074942; Ismail et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.008; Hashemi et al. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1372413). In addition, expressions of concern have been published for two studies (Jamilian et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1236-3; Zadeh Modarres 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1148-2). The retracted studies will be moved to the Excluded Studies table, and their impact on the review findings will be investigated and acted on accordingly in a future update. Initial checks indicate that removal of the six retracted studies did not make an appreciable difference to the results. Likewise, the studies for which Expressions of Concern were issued will be moved to the Awaiting classification table; they did not report any review outcomes, so removal will have no impact on the review findings. A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I2 = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I2 = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency. In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Showell MG ，Mackenzie-Proctor R ，Jordan V ，Hart RJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences). We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes. A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education. To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually. Not registered.

Pillay J ，Gaudet LA ，Saba S ，Vandermeer B ，Ashiq AR ，Wingert A ，Hartling L ... -  《Systematic Reviews》

Vitamin D supplementation for women during pregnancy.

Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy may help improve maternal and neonatal health outcomes (such as fewer preterm birth and low birthweight babies) and reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes (such as severe postpartum haemorrhage). To examine whether vitamin D supplementation alone or in combination with calcium or other vitamins and minerals given to women during pregnancy can safely improve certain maternal and neonatal outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (which includes results of comprehensive searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and relevant conference proceedings) (3 December 2022). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effect of supplementation with vitamin D alone or in combination with other micronutrients for women during pregnancy in comparison to placebo or no intervention. Two review authors independently i) assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria, ii) assessed trustworthiness based on pre-defined criteria of scientific integrity, iii) extracted data from included studies, and iv) assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The previous version of this review included 30 studies; in this update, we have removed 20 of these studies to 'awaiting classification' following assessments of trustworthiness, one study has been excluded, and one new study included. This current review has a total of 10 included studies, 117 excluded studies, 34 studies in awaiting assessment, and seven ongoing studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. This removal of the studies resulted in evidence that was downgraded to low-certainty or very low-certainty due to study design limitations, inconsistency between studies, and imprecision. Supplementation with vitamin D compared to no intervention or a placebo A total of eight studies involving 2313 pregnant women were included in this comparison. We assessed four studies as having a low risk of bias for most domains and four studies as having high risk or unclear risk of bias for most domains. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of supplementation with vitamin D during pregnancy compared to placebo or no intervention on pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 1.33; 1 study, 165 women), gestational diabetes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.03 to 8.28; 1 study, 165 women), preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.33; 3 studies, 1368 women), nephritic syndrome (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 study, 135 women), or hypercalcaemia (1 study; no cases reported). Supplementation with vitamin D during pregnancy may reduce the risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage; however, only one study reported this outcome (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.91; 1 study, 1134 women; low-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of low birthweight; however, the upper CI suggests that an increase in risk cannot be ruled out (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.08; 3 studies, 371 infants; low-certainty evidence). Supplementation with vitamin D + calcium compared to no intervention or a placebo One study involving 84 pregnant women was included in this comparison. Overall, this study was at moderate to high risk of bias. Pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and maternal adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of supplementation with vitamin D and calcium on preterm birth (RR not estimable; very low-certainty evidence) or for low birthweight (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 14.94; very low-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo or no intervention. Supplementation with vitamin D + calcium + other vitamins and minerals versus calcium + other vitamins and minerals (but no vitamin D) One study involving 1298 pregnant women was included in this comparison. We assessed this study as having a low risk of bias in all domains. Pre-eclampsia was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of supplementation with vitamin D, calcium, and other vitamins and minerals during pregnancy compared to no vitamin D on gestational diabetes (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.73; very low-certainty evidence), maternal adverse events (hypercalcaemia no events and hypercalciuria RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 3.97; very low-certainty evidence), preterm birth (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.59; low-certainty evidence), or low birthweight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.51; low-certainty evidence). This updated review using the trustworthy assessment tool removed 21 studies from the previous update and added one new study for a total of 10 included studies. In this setting, supplementation with vitamin D alone compared to no intervention or a placebo resulted in very uncertain evidence on pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, preterm birth, or nephritic syndrome. It may reduce the risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage; however, only one study reported this outcome. It may also reduce the risk of low birthweight; however, the upper CI suggests that an increase in risk cannot be ruled out. Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium versus placebo or no intervention resulted in very uncertain evidence on preterm birth and low birthweight. Pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and maternal adverse events were not reported in the only study included in this comparison. Supplementation with vitamin D + calcium + other vitamins and minerals versus calcium + other vitamins and minerals (but no vitamin D) resulted in very uncertain evidence on gestational diabetes and maternal adverse events (hypercalciuria) and uncertain evidence on preterm birth and low birthweight. Pre-eclampsia was not reported in the only study included in this comparison. All findings warrant further research. Additional rigorous, high-quality, and larger randomised trials are required to evaluate the effects of vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy, particularly in relation to the risk of maternal adverse events.

Palacios C ，Kostiuk LL ，Cuthbert A ，Weeks J ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Interventions for supporting pregnant women's decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean.

Pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean birth and who have no contraindication for vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) may need to decide whether to choose between a repeat caesarean birth or to commence labour with the intention of achieving a VBAC. Women need information about their options and interventions designed to support decision-making may be helpful. Decision support interventions can be implemented independently, or shared with health professionals during clinical encounters or used in mediated social encounters with others, such as telephone decision coaching services. Decision support interventions can include decision aids, one-on-one counselling, group information or support sessions and decision protocols or algorithms. This review considers any decision support intervention for pregnant women making birth choices after a previous caesarean birth. To examine the effectiveness of interventions to support decision-making about vaginal birth after a caesarean birth.Secondary objectives are to identify issues related to the acceptability of any interventions to parents and the feasibility of their implementation. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2013), Current Controlled Trials (22 July 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (ICTRP) (22 July 2013) and reference lists of retrieved articles. We also conducted citation searches of included studies to identify possible concurrent qualitative studies. All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials with reported data of any intervention designed to support pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean birth make decisions about their options for birth. Studies using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion. Studies published in abstract form only would have been eligible for inclusion if data were able to be extracted. Two review authors independently applied the selection criteria and carried out data extraction and quality assessment of studies. Data were checked for accuracy. We contacted authors of included trials for additional information. All included interventions were classified as independent, shared or mediated decision supports. Consensus was obtained for classifications. Verification of the final list of included studies was undertaken by three review authors. Three randomised controlled trials involving 2270 women from high-income countries were eligible for inclusion in the review. Outcomes were reported for 1280 infants in one study. The interventions assessed in the trials were designed to be used either independently by women or mediated through the involvement of independent support. No studies looked at shared decision supports, that is, interventions designed to facilitate shared decision-making with health professionals during clinical encounters.We found no difference in planned mode of birth: VBAC (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.10; I² = 0%) or caesarean birth (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.10; I² = 0%). The proportion of women unsure about preference did not change (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.20; I² = 0%).There was no difference in adverse outcomes reported between intervention and control groups (one trial, 1275 women/1280 babies): permanent (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36); severe (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.36); unclear (0.66, 95% CI 0.27, 1.61). Overall, 64.8% of those indicating preference for VBAC achieved it, while 97.1% of those planning caesarean birth achieved this mode of birth. We found no difference in the proportion of women achieving congruence between preferred and actual mode of birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07) (three trials, 1921 women).More women had caesarean births (57.3%), including 535 women where it was unplanned (42.6% all caesarean deliveries and 24.4% all births). We found no difference in actual mode of birth between groups, (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06) (three trials, 2190 women).Decisional conflict about preferred mode of birth was lower (less uncertainty) for women with decisional support (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.02; two trials, 787 women; I² = 48%). There was also a significant increase in knowledge among women with decision support compared with those in the control group (SMD 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; two trials, 787 women; I² = 65%). However, there was considerable heterogeneity between the two studies contributing to this outcome ( I² = 65%) and attrition was greater than 15 per cent and the evidence for this outcome is considered to be moderate quality only. There was no difference in satisfaction between women with decision support and those without it (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.20; two trials, 797 women; I² = 0%). No study assessed decisional regret or whether women's information needs were met.Qualitative data gathered in interviews with women and health professionals provided information about acceptability of the decision support and its feasibility of implementation. While women liked the decision support there was concern among health professionals about their impact on their time and workload. Evidence is limited to independent and mediated decision supports. Research is needed on shared decision support interventions for women considering mode of birth in a pregnancy after a caesarean birth to use with their care providers.

Horey D ，Kealy M ，Davey MA ，Small R ，Crowther CA ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》