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.

Methods: A decision-analytic model, based on clinical phase III trials, was developed to simulate patient transitions. Direct costs were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 5-year lifetime horizon. Model robustness was conducted in sensitivity analyses.

Results: For the base case, EGFR mutation testing followed by afatinib treatment for advanced NSCLC increased 0.15 QALYs compared with standard chemotherapy at an additional cost of $5069.12. The ICER for afatinib maintenance was $33,416.39 per QALY gained. The utility of PFS and the cost of afatinib had the most important impact on the ICER. Scenario analyses suggested that when a patient assistance program (PAP) was available, ICER decreased to $22,972.52/QALY lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($26,508/QALY).

Methods: We used a Markov microsimulation model to compare the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid with alendronate in Chinese postmenopausal osteoporotic women with no fracture history at various ages of therapy initiation from health care payer perspective.

Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the zoledronic acid versus alendronate were $23,581/QALY at age 65 years, $17,367/QALY at age 70 years, $14,714/QALY at age 75 years, and $12,169/QALY at age 80 years, respectively. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the study demonstrated that the two most impactful parameters were the annual cost of zoledronic acid and the relative risk of hip fracture with zoledronic acid. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of zoledronic acid being cost-effective compared with alendronate were 70-100% at a willingness-to-pay of $29,340 per QALY.