Preterm Birth · Prediction
Hueston WJ et al., 1995 · Obstet Gynecol
To evaluate whether preterm-birth prevention educational programs are effective at reducing neonatal mortality, low birth weight (LBW), and preterm delivery. A MEDLINE literature search of English-language studies was performed, supplemented by a bibliography search of original research and review articles to locate studies assessing preterm-birth prevention programs. We identified 31 studies that reported results from trials evaluating preterm-birth prevention programs. From this group, only the six randomized controlled trials evaluating preterm-birth prevention education programs satisfied criteria of homogeneity to be included in a meta-analysis. One of these six studies was a subset of another study and was excluded except when reporting outcomes that were not included in the larger report. Two independent reviewers assessed study methodology and identified the following outcomes: LBW frequency, preterm birth frequency, neonatal survival, birth weight, gestational age at delivery, and preterm labor diagnosis rates. When data were combined using meta-analytic techniques, no significant benefits were found for preterm-birth education programs in preventing neonatal death (cumulative relative risk [RR] 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.01), LBW rates (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88-1.11), or preterm delivery rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92-1.27). The only statistically significant effect of preterm birth education programs appears to be an increase in the frequency at which preterm labor is diagnosed (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.41-2.08). Preterm-birth prevention educational programs appear to have little benefit in reducing preterm birth and may result in an increased rate of diagnosis of preterm labor.
Neonatal Outcomes · Birth Weight
Shah PS et al., 2009 · BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
History of induced termination of pregnancy (I-TOP) is suggested as a precursor for infant being born low birthweight (LBW), preterm (PT) or small for gestational age (SGA). Infection, mechanical trauma to the cervix leading to cervical incompetence and scarred tissue following curettage are suspected mechanisms. To systematically review the risk of an infant being born LBW/PT/SGA among women with history of I-TOP. Medline, Embase, CINAHL and bibliographies of identified articles were searched for English language studies. Studies reporting birth outcomes to mothers with or without history of induced abortion were included. and analyses Two reviewers independently collected data and assessed the quality of the studies for biases in sample selection, exposure assessment, confounder adjustment, analytical, outcome assessments and attrition. Meta-analyses were performed using random effect model and odds ratio (OR), weighted mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Thirty-seven studies of low-moderate risk of bias were included. A history of one I-TOP was associated with increased unadjusted odds of LBW (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.20-1.52) and PT (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.24-1.50), but not SGA (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69-1.09). A history of more than one I-TOP was associated with LBW (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.45-2.04) and PT (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.28-2.71). Meta-analyses of adjusted risk estimates confirmed these findings. A previous I-TOP is associated with a significantly increased risk of LBW and PT but not SGA. The risk increased as the number of I-TOP increased.
Preterm Birth · Prediction
Moore ML et al., 1998 · Obstet Gynecol
To test the effect of telephone calls from registered nurses to low-income pregnant women on the rates of low birth weight (LBW) and preterm births. A total of 1554 women receiving prenatal care in a public clinic who met study criteria and who consented were assigned randomly to intervention and control groups. Women in the intervention group received telephone calls from a registered nurse, one or two times weekly from 24 weeks' through 37 weeks' gestation. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Low birth weight rates were 10.9% in the intervention group and 14.0% in the control group (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.55, 1.03; P = .072). For gestational age less than 37 weeks, rates were 9.7 in the intervention group and 11.0 in the control group (RR .87; 95% CI 0.62, 1.22; P = .415). In the subgroup of low-income black women 19 years of age and older, a statistically significant difference was found in preterm birth rates before 37 weeks (8.7% in the intervention group versus 15.4% in the controls [RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.38, 0.84; P = .004]). There was no difference in LBW or preterm births between intervention and control groups in the total sample. In a secondary analysis of black subjects 19 years of age and older, there was a significant difference in preterm birth rates.
Preterm Birth · Prediction
Hobel CJ et al., 1994 · Am J Obstet Gynecol
The primary objective of this prospective study was to test whether preterm birth prevention education plus increased clinic visits and selected prophylactic interventions reduce preterm birth. Eight West Los Angeles prenatal county clinics, comparable with respect to selected demographics, were randomized to be either experimental or control clinics. High-risk patients in all clinics were identified with a risk scoring system derived from a similar population. High-risk patients (N = 1774) in experimental clinics were offered a program of education and more frequent visits and were randomized to receive various secondary intervention protocols in addition to the basic interventions of education and more frequent visits. Control clinic patients (N = 880) received standard county care. Preterm birth rates were 19% lower among the experimental high-risk patients (7.4% vs 9.1%), and differences were significant (p < 0.05) when preterm risk was taken into account. There was no evidence to suggest that the secondary interventions provided added benefit over the primary intervention protocol of preterm birth prevention education and increased visits. The 19% reduction in preterm birth rate observed in the experimental clinics suggest an overall program benefit from a protocol that offered education, more frequent visits, and greater attention given to patients while the selected interventions were applied.