STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional comparative study in a Malaysian tertiary obstetric hospital involving 200 non-smoking pregnant women at term, of whom 100 were secondhand smokers and 100 were non-secondhand smokers. Those with multiple pregnancies, with a body mass index (BMI) of more than 30kg/m2or who delivered by Caesarean section were excluded. The participants' basic demographic details, delivery details, neonatal outcome and placental weight were recorded. Umbilical cord blood samples were obtained, and cord blood cotinine levels were measured with a Cotinine ELISA kit. The primary outcomes were baby's birth weight, length, and head circumference, Apgar score at 5min and placental weight. The secondary outcome was difference in cord blood cotinine levels between the two groups and the correlation of these differences with the neonatal outcome.
RESULTS: The secondhand smoker group had significantly lower baby weight (2.94±0.31kg vs 3.05±0.40kg), head circumference (30.87±2.35cm vs 37.13±2.36cm), length (46.58±1.95cm vs 51.53±2.05cm) and placental weight (520±73.5g vs 596±61.3g) and significantly higher cord blood cotinine levels (16.35±12.84ng/mL vs 0.56±0.22ng/mL). Cord blood cotinine levels had significant negative correlations with placental weight (r=-0.461), baby's weight (r=-0.297), baby's head circumference (r=-0.501) and baby's length (r=-0.374).
CONCLUSION: Secondhand smoke increases the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes (newborns'anthropometric measurements and placental weight) and causes higher cord blood cotinine levels.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomised trial was performed in a University hospital, Malaysia from June 2020 to May 2021. 281 term nulliparas who were about to start pushing in the second stage of labour were randomised to combined perineal massage and warm compress or perineal massage alone to the perineum. Primary outcome was suturing for perineal injury (episiotomy or tear). The Chi-square test was used to analyse categorical data, Student t test to compare means and distributions for normally distributed continuous data and Mann Whitney U test for appropriate ordinal data.
RESULTS: Data from 277 participants (140 MassComp arm, 137 perineal massage alone arm) were analysed based on modified intention to treat basis. Perineal suturing rates were 133/140(95.0%) [MassComp] vs. 128/137(93.4%) [perineal massage alone] RR 1.02(95%CI 0.96-1.08), P = 0.615. Of the secondary outcomes, Likert scale response to recommend allocated treatment to a friend was 103/140(73.6%) vs. 84/137(61.3%) RR 1.20(95%CI 1.02-1.42)NNTb 9(95%CI 4.3-76.4) P = 0.029, participants' satisfaction with care (visual numerical rating scale 0-10) median [interquartile range] 6[6-8] vs. 6[5-8] P = 0.392, intervention to delivery intervals were 25[15-35] vs. 19[14-30] minutes P = 0.012, major perineal injury (episiotomy, second degree or higher tears) rates 116/140(82.9%) vs. 119/137(86.9%) RR 0.95(95%CI 0.86-1.05), P = 0.404, episiotomy rates 97/140(69.3%) vs. 97/140(70.8%) RR 0.98(95%CI 0.84-1.14), P = 0.795, and spontaneous vaginal delivery rates 103/140(73.6%) vs. 106/137(77.4%) RR 0.95(95%CI 0.83-1.09), P = 0.488 for MassComp vs. perineal massage alone respectively. Other maternal and neonatal outcomes were not significantly different.
CONCLUSION: Massage and warm compress during pushing did not decrease the likelihood of perineal injury requiring suturing in nulliparas when compared to perineal massage alone. Women were more likely to recommend massage and warm compress during pushing to a friend.
STUDY DESIGN: The present study was conducted on 151 women with gynecological cancers as the case group and 152 healthy women with no history of such cancers as control group. The dematographic details of participants from both control and case groups were collected using a checklist, and the pattern of their fingerprints was prepared and examined. The data were analyzed for their significance using chi-square test and t- test. Odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
RESULTS: Dermatoglyphic analysis showed that arch and loop patterns significantly changed in cases group as compared to control. However, the odds ratio suggested that loop pattern in 6 or more fingers might be a risk factor for developing gynecological cancers.
CONCLUSION: Our results showed that there is an association between fingerprint patterns and gynecological cancers and so, dermatoglyphic analysis may aid in the early diagnosis of these cancers.