A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Progestogens for preterm birth prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis by drug route. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study examines the effectiveness of different forms of progestogen (intramuscular, vaginal, and oral) in preventing preterm births and neonatal deaths in women at risk.
  • From 27 randomized trials, both vaginal and oral progestogens were found effective in reducing preterm births, while only intramuscular progestogen showed significant impact on lowering neonatal deaths.
  • The findings suggest that all delivery routes can reduce preterm births, but not all are effective in reducing neonatal deaths, indicating a need for future studies to compare these methods directly.

Article Abstract

Purpose: Progestogen has been investigated as a preventive intervention among women with increased preterm birth risk. Our objective was to systematically review the effectiveness of intramuscular (IM), vaginal, and oral progestogens for preterm birth and neonatal death prevention.

Methods: We included articles published from January 1966 to January 2013 and found 27 randomized trials with data for Bayesian meta-analysis.

Results: Across all studies, only vaginal and oral routes were effective at reducing preterm births (IM risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95 % Bayesian credible interval [BCI]: 0.88-1.03; vaginal RR 0.87, 95 % BCI: 0.80-0.94; oral RR 0.64, 95 % BCI: 0.49-0.85). However, when analyses were limited to only single births all routes were effective at reducing preterm birth (IM RR 0.77, 95 % BCI: 0.69-0.87; vaginal RR 0.80, 95 % BCI: 0.69-0.91; oral RR 0.66, 95 % BCI: 0.47-0.84). Only IM progestogen was effective at reducing neonatal deaths (IM RR 0.78, 95 % BCI: 0.56-0.99; vaginal RR 0.75, 95 % BCI: 0.45-1.09; oral RR 0.72, 95 % BCI: 0.09-1.74). Vaginal progestogen was effective in reducing neonatal deaths when limited to singletons births.

Conclusions: All progestogen routes reduce preterm births but not neonatal deaths. Future studies are needed that directly compare progestogen delivery routes.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2789-9DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

preterm birth
16
effective reducing
16
neonatal deaths
12
progestogens preterm
8
vaginal oral
8
routes effective
8
reducing preterm
8
preterm births
8
bci
8
progestogen effective
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!