OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the relationship between stillbirth and various perinatal outcomes in subsequent pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI databases were searched up to July 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cohort studies that reported the association between stillbirth and perinatal outcomes in subsequent pregnancies were included. METHODS: We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using Rand Stata software. We used random-effects models to pool each outcome of interest. We performed a meta-regression analysis to explore the potential heterogeneity. The certainty (quality) of evidence assessment was performed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Nineteen cohort studies were included, involving 4,855,153 participants. From these studies, we identified 28,322 individuals with previous stillbirths who met the eligibility criteria. After adjusting for confounders, evidence of low to moderate certainty indicated that compared with women with previous live births, women with previous stillbirths had higher risks of recurrent stillbirth (odds ratio, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 2.01-3.56), preterm birth (odds ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.07-4.80), neonatal death (odds ratio, 4.24; 95% confidence interval, 2.65-6.79), small for gestational age/intrauterine growth restriction (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.8), low birthweight (odds ratio, 3.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-7.52), placental abruption (odds ratio, 3.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-8.98), instrumental delivery (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-3.11), labor induction (odds ratio, 4.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-8.88), cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-4.73), elective cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.82-3.23), and emergency cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-3.06) in subsequent pregnancies, but had a lower rate of spontaneous labor (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.36). However, there was no association between previous stillbirth and preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-4.70) in subsequent pregnancies. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis provide a more comprehensive understanding of adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with previous stillbirth. These findings could be used to inform counseling for couples who are considering pregnancy after a previous stillbirth.

IntroductionThere was limited evidence on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of prediction models using machine learning methods in preterm birth. This systematic review aimed to assess the reporting quality and risk of bias of a machine learning-based prediction model in preterm birth. Material and methodsWe conducted a systematic review, searching the PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine disk, VIP Database, and WanFang Data from inception to September 27, 2021. Studies that developed (validated) a prediction model using machine learning methods in preterm birth were included. We used the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement and Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to evaluate the reporting quality and the risk of bias of included studies, respectively. Findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and visual plots. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (no. CRD 42022301623). ResultsTwenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, with 24 development-only studies and 5 development-with-validation studies. Overall, TRIPOD adherence per study ranged from 17% to 79%, with a median adherence of 49%. The reporting of title, abstract, blinding of predictors, sample size justification, explanation of model, and model performance were mostly poor, with TRIPOD adherence ranging from 4% to 17%. For all included studies, 79% had a high overall risk of bias, and 21% had an unclear overall risk of bias. The analysis domain was most commonly rated as high risk of bias in included studies, mainly as a result of small effective sample size, selection of predictors based on univariable analysis, and lack of calibration evaluation. ConclusionsReporting and methodological quality of machine learning-based prediction models in preterm birth were poor. It is urgent to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of such studies to boost the application of machine learning-based prediction models in preterm birth in clinical practice.

Aim To assess the effect of lubricants on reducing perineal trauma during vaginal delivery. Methods PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine disc, WanFang databases, and , were searched for literature up to 25 June 2021. Randomized controlled trials published in English or Chinese that compared the vaginal application of lubricant with standard care for women were included. Two reviewers independently performed study screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and certainty of evidence assessment. Pooled effect sizes and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using meta-analysis. Results Nineteen trials enrolling 5445 pregnant women were included. Compared with standard care, women using lubricants had a lower incidence of perineal trauma (risk ratio [RR] 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.93; low certainty evidence), second-degree perineal laceration (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.82; moderate certainty evidence) and episiotomy (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.96; very low certainty evidence), and had a shorter duration of the second-stage labor (MD -13.72 min, 95% CI -22.68 to -4.77; very low certainty evidence). Conclusion Lubricants might reduce the incidence of perineal trauma, especially second-degree perineal laceration, and shorten the duration of the second-stage labor. More well-designed studies will continue developing high-quality evidence in this field.

New interest in home birth have recently arisen in women at low risk pregnancy. Maternal and neonatal morbidity of women planning delivery at home has yet to be comprehensively quantified. We aimed to quantify pregnancy outcomes following planned home (PHB) versus planned hospital birth (PHos). We did a systematic review of maternal and neonatal morbidity following planned home (PHB) versus planned hospital birth (PHos). We included prospective, retrospective, cohort and case-control studies of low risk pregnancy outcomes according to planning place of birth, identified from January 2000 to June 2017. We excluded studies in which high-risk pregnancy and composite morbidity were included. Outcomes of interest were: maternal and neonatal morbidity/mortality, medical interventions, and delivery mode. We pooled estimates of the association between outcomes and planning place of birth using meta-analyses. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, protocol number CRD42017058016. We included 8 studies of the 4294 records identified, consisting in 14,637 (32.6%) in PHB and 30,177 (67.4%) in PHos group. Spontaneous delivery was significantly higher in PHB than PHos group (OR: 2.075; 95%CI:1.654-2.063) group. Women in PHB group were less likely to undergo cesarean compared with women in PHos (OR:0.607; 95%CI:0.553-0.667) group. PHB group was less likely to receive medical interventions than PHos group. The risk of fetal dystocia was lower in PHB than PHos group (OR:0.287; 95%CI:0.133-0.618). The risk of post-partum hemorrhage was lower in PHB than PHos group (OR:0.692; 95% CI.0.634-0.755). The two groups were similar with regard to neonatal morbidity and mortality. Births assisted at hospital are more likely to receive medical interventions, fetal monitoring and prompt delivery in case of obstetrical complications. Further studies are needed in order to clarify whether home births are as safe as hospital births

BACKGROUND: Delays in getting medical help are important factors in the deaths of many pregnant women and unborn children in the low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Studies have suggested that the use of cell phones and radio communication systems might reduce such delays. OBJECTIVES: We review the literature regarding the impact of cell phones and radio communication systems on delays in getting medical help by pregnant women in the LMIC. DESIGN: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Maternity and Infant care (Ovid), Web of Science (ISI), and Google Scholar were searched for studies relating to the use of cell phones for maternal and child health services, supplemented with hand searches. We included studies in LMIC and in English involving the simple use of cell phones (or radio communication) to either make calls or send text messages. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. All the studies, while of various designs, demonstrated positive contributory effects of cell phones or radio communication systems in reducing delays experienced by pregnant women in getting medical help. CONCLUSIONS: While the results suggested that cell phones could contribute in reducing delays, more studies of a longer duration are needed to strengthen the finding