METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, the neurodevelopmental status of infants (N = 298) born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infections during pregnancy was assessed at 10-12 months post-discharge using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd edition (ASQ-3). The ASQ-3 scores were classified into developmental delays (cutoff scores ≤ 2 standard deviations (SDs) below the population mean) and no delays (scores > 2 SDs above the population mean).
RESULTS: The majority (90%) of the infants born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infections during pregnancy had favorable outcomes and only 10% showed developmental delays. Two of the 298 infants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and both had normal ASQ-3 scores. The majority of the pregnant women had SARS-CoV-2 infections during their third trimester. The risk of developmental delays among infants was higher in those whose mothers had SARS-CoV-2 infections during the first (P = 0.039) and second trimesters (P = 0.001) than in those whose mothers had SARS-CoV-2 infections during the third trimester.
CONCLUSION: The neurodevelopmental outcomes of infants born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infections seem favorable. However, more studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required.
METHOD: A historical cohort of 986 premenopausal, and 1123 postmenopausal, parous breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2001 to 2012 in University Malaya Medical Centre were included in the analyses. Time since LCB was categorized into quintiles. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine whether time since LCB was associated with survival following breast cancer, adjusting for demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics.
RESULTS: Premenopausal breast cancer patients with the most recent childbirth (LCB quintile 1) were younger, more likely to present with unfavorable prognostic profiles and had the lowest 5-year overall survival (OS) (66.9; 95% CI 60.2-73.6%), compared to women with longer duration since LCB (quintile 2 thru 5). In univariable analysis, time since LCB was inversely associated with risk of mortality and the hazard ratio for LCB quintile 2, 3, 4, and 5 versus quintile 1 were 0.53 (95% CI 0.36-0.77), 0.49 (95% CI 0.33-0.75), 0.61 (95% CI 0.43-0.85), and 0.64 (95% CI 0.44-0.93), respectively; P trend = 0.016. However, this association was attenuated substantially following adjustment for age at diagnosis and other prognostic factors. Similarly, postmenopausal breast cancer patients with the most recent childbirth were also more likely to present with unfavorable disease profiles. Compared to postmenopausal breast cancer patients in LCB quintile 1, patients in quintile 5 had a higher risk of mortality. This association was not significant following multivariable adjustment.
CONCLUSION: Time since LCB is not independently associated with survival in premenopausal or postmenopausal breast cancers. The apparent increase in risks of mortality in premenopausal breast cancer patients with a recent childbirth, and postmenopausal patients with longer duration since LCB, appear to be largely explained by their age at diagnosis.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted. The translated Malay version of the WOMBLSQ was completed by 200 postpartum women in a tertiary hospital. The Rasch model was applied to investigate the statistics, unidimensionality, item polarity and misfit, person misfit and person item distribution map.
RESULTS: The Rasch analysis showed that the 27 items, in nine dimensions, had high item reliability and item separation at 0.98 and 7.65 respectively, while good person reliability and person separation were at 0.78 and 1.90, respectively. Item 6 ('My birth partner/husband couldn't have supported me any better') (outfit MnSq = 1.74, outfit z-std = 6.9, PtMea Corr = - 0.02) and Item 5 ('My birth partner/husband helped me to understand what was going on when I was in labor') (outfit MnSq = 1.65, outfit z-std = 2.9, PtMea Corr = 0.13) are misfit. Item 6 needs to be re-examined for removal or rephrasing, while Item 5 correlates poorly with the construct. Eight persons have the most misfitting response strings based on Item 6 but extremely trivial differences were found in the parameter estimates after refitting the model. Ten items easily endorse satisfaction from the respondents.
CONCLUSION: The WOMBLSQ tested among postpartum women has been shown to have a good person reliability index and a high item reliability index. Items 5 and 6 do not contribute in the construction of scale but not degrading and suggested for refining. The spread of item difficulty should be improved in the future modification of items.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. Postpartum women were identified from a tertiary hospital and evaluated at 1-month postnatal period using WOMBLSQ. The Rasch model was used to investigate the reliability, unidimensionality, item and person misfits and distribution map.
RESULTS: A total of 195 women were involved. The Rasch analysis revealed that the 30 items had a high level of reliability at 0.99 and item separation at 9.02. It has a low level of reliability at 0.45 and persons separation at 0.90. All the items are considered fit. Five people have most misfitting response strings based on item IPS_Q15, 'I was given little advice on contraception following the birth of my baby', but extremely trivial differences were found in the parameter estimates after refitting the model. The more difficult item to endorse satisfaction is item CA_Q17 'I was given little advice on contraception following the birth of my baby'.
CONCLUSIONS: The WOMBLSQ tested in postpartum women proved to have high item reliability index but with an adequate sample. The analysis shows that the 30 items target the right form of respondents, have similar latent characteristics of postpartum women and a shared sense of satisfaction. For future improvement, more difficult items endorsing satisfaction should be created, and the common items in which satisfaction is expected should be reduced.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on mother and baby of a policy of selective episiotomy ('only if needed') compared with a policy of routine episiotomy ('part of routine management') for vaginal births.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (14 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selective versus routine use of episiotomy, irrespective of parity, setting or surgical type of episiotomy. We included trials where either unassisted or assisted vaginal births were intended. Quasi-RCTs, trials using a cross-over design or those published in abstract form only were not eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third author mediated where there was no clear consensus. We observed good practice for data analysis and interpretation where trialists were review authors. We used fixed-effect models unless heterogeneity precluded this, expressed results as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 12 studies (6177 women), 11 in women in labour for whom a vaginal birth was intended, and one in women where an assisted birth was anticipated. Two were trials each with more than 1000 women (Argentina and the UK), and the rest were smaller (from Canada, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Malaysia, Pakistan, Columbia and Saudi Arabia). Eight trials included primiparous women only, and four trials were in both primiparous and multiparous women. For risk of bias, allocation was adequately concealed and reported in nine trials; sequence generation random and adequately reported in three trials; blinding of outcomes adequate and reported in one trial, blinding of participants and personnel reported in one trial.For women where an unassisted vaginal birth was anticipated, a policy of selective episiotomy may result in 30% fewer women experiencing severe perineal/vaginal trauma (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; 5375 women; eight RCTs; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if there is a difference for blood loss at delivery (an average of 27 mL less with selective episiotomy, 95% CI from 75 mL less to 20 mL more; two trials, 336 women, very low-certainty evidence). Both selective and routine episiotomy have little or no effect on infants with Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (four trials, no events; 3908 women, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference in perineal infection (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.82, three trials, 1467 participants, low-certainty evidence).For pain, we do not know if selective episiotomy compared with routine results in fewer women with moderate or severe perineal pain (measured on a visual analogue scale) at three days postpartum (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.05, one trial, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) dyspareunia (RR1.14, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.53, three trials, 1107 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) urinary incontinence (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.44, three trials, 1107 participants, low-certainty evidence). One trial reported genital prolapse at three years postpartum. There was no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.41; 365 women; one trial, low certainty evidence). Other outcomes relating to long-term effects were not reported (urinary fistula, rectal fistula, and faecal incontinence). Subgroup analyses by parity (primiparae versus multiparae) and by surgical method (midline versus mediolateral episiotomy) did not identify any modifying effects. Pain was not well assessed, and women's preferences were not reported.One trial examined selective episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy in women where an operative vaginal delivery was intended in 175 women, and did not show clear difference on severe perineal trauma between the restrictive and routine use of episiotomy, but the analysis was underpowered.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In women where no instrumental delivery is intended, selective episiotomy policies result in fewer women with severe perineal/vaginal trauma. Other findings, both in the short or long term, provide no clear evidence that selective episiotomy policies results in harm to mother or baby.The review thus demonstrates that believing that routine episiotomy reduces perineal/vaginal trauma is not justified by current evidence. Further research in women where instrumental delivery is intended may help clarify if routine episiotomy is useful in this particular group. These trials should use better, standardised outcome assessment methods.