Tailoring systematic reviews to meet critical priorities in maternal health in the intrapartum period. Examination of the analytic quality of behavioral health randomized clinical trials. Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (3 of 7): evidence for effectiveness of interventions.
Health care practitioners and researchers commonly call for greater reliance on evidence as a means to achieve improvement in quality of care. Systematic reviews provide a means to accelerate the use of evidence-based clinical interventions and public health practices. The extent to which these time- and resource-intensive systematic reviews currently address critical maternal health priorities in the intrapartum period is unclear. This analysis summarises key maternal health and research priorities, maps these priorities to existing reviews, identifies gaps in the literature that can be addressed with systematic reviews, and highlights key methodological concerns in conducting systematic reviews. The analysis draws on published data on maternal morbidities and an overview of 108 systematic reviews in Medline in the past 5 years using the MeSH terms 'Delivery, Obstetric,' to draw the links between health priorities, research priorities, existing evidence and missing evidence. Key causes of morbidity during labour and delivery in the United States include haemorrhage, pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, obstetric trauma and infection. Analyses of maternal morbidity and mortality suggest that key concerns include racial and ethnic disparities in health outcomes and the prevention of adverse events. Systematic reviews, however, generally tend to focus on the reduction of harms associated with interventions, are frequently limited to randomised designs, and do not address issues of health disparities. The results suggest that advances in evidence-based care in maternal health require that systematic reviews address issues of prevention of adverse events, include a larger variety of study designs when necessary and pay closer attention to health disparities. Adoption of evidence-based practice (EBP) policy has implications for clinicians and researchers alike. In fields that have already adopted EBP, evidence-based practice guidelines derive from systematic reviews of research evidence. Ultimately, such guidelines serve as tools used by practitioners. Systematic reviews of treatment efficacy and effectiveness reserve their strongest endorsements for treatments that are supported by high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It is unknown how well RCTs reported in behavioral science journals fare compared to quality standards set forth in fields that pioneered the evidence-based movement. We compared analytic quality features of all behavioral health RCTs (n = 73) published in three leading behavioral journals and two leading medical journals between January 2000 and July 2003. A behavioral health trial was operationalized as one employing a behavioral treatment modality to prevent or treat an acute or chronic physical disease or condition. Findings revealed areas of weakness in analytic aspects of the behavioral health RCTs reported in both sets of journals. Weaknesses were more pronounced in behavioral journals. The authors offer recommendations for improving the analytic quality of behavioral health RCTs to ensure that evidence about behavioral treatments is highly weighted in systematic reviews.
                (c) 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Interventions directed toward mothers before and during pregnancy and childbirth may help reduce preterm births and stillbirths. Survival of preterm newborns may also be improved with interventions given during these times or soon after birth. This comprehensive review assesses existing interventions for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
                Approximately 2,000 intervention studies were systematically evaluated through December 31, 2008. They addressed preterm birth or low birth weight; stillbirth or perinatal mortality; and management of preterm newborns. Out of 82 identified interventions, 49 were relevant to LMICs and had reasonable amounts of evidence, and therefore selected for in-depth reviews. Each was classified and assessed by the quality of available evidence and its potential to treat or prevent preterm birth and stillbirth. Impacts on other maternal, fetal, newborn or child health outcomes were also considered. Assessments were based on an adaptation of the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.
                Most interventions require additional research to improve the quality of evidence. Others had little evidence of benefit and should be discontinued. The following are supported by moderate- to high-quality evidence and strongly recommended for LMICs: Two interventions prevent preterm births--smoking cessation and progesterone. Eight interventions prevent stillbirths--balanced protein energy supplementation, screening and treatment of syphilis, intermittant presumptive treatment for malaria during pregnancy, insecticide-treated mosquito nets, birth preparedness, emergency obstetric care, cesarean section for breech presentation, and elective induction for post-term delivery. Eleven interventions improve survival of preterm newborns--prophylactic steroids in preterm labor, antibiotics for PROM, vitamin K supplementation at delivery, case management of neonatal sepsis and pneumonia, delayed cord clamping, room air (vs. 100% oxygen) for resuscitation, hospital-based kangaroo mother care, early breastfeeding, thermal care, and surfactant therapy and application of continued distending pressure to the lungs for respiratory distress syndrome
                The research paradigm for discovery science and intervention development must be balanced to address prevention as well as improve morbidity and mortality in all settings. This review also reveals significant gaps in current knowledge of interventions spanning the continuum of maternal and fetal outcomes, and the critical need to generate further high-quality evidence for promising interventions.
At the moment there is no evidence from individual RCTs in children and adults with different malignancies that underscores the use of an LBD for the prevention of infection and related outcomes. All studies differed with regard to co-interventions, outcome definitions, and intervention and control diets. Since pooling of results was not possible and all studies had serious methodological limitations, no definitive conclusions can be made. It should be noted that 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. Based on the currently available evidence, we are not able to give recommendations for clinical practice. More high-quality research is needed.