Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23794285›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Interventions for treating cholestasis in pregnancy.

Vinita Gurung, Philippa Middleton, Stephen J Milan, William Hague, Jim G Thornton

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Clinical Management Guidelines for Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy.Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Vinita GurungDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Philippa Middleton
Stephen J Milan
William Hague
Jim G Thornton
Women's and Children's Hospital · AUUniversity of Nottingham · GBLancaster University · GB

Funding

Department of Health 10/4001/02Department of Health PB-PG-0107-12037Department of Health SRP/10/4001/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObstetric cholestasis has been linked to adverse maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes. As the pathophysiology is poorly understood, therapies have been empiric. The first version of this review, published in 2001, and including nine randomised controlled trials involving 227 women, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend any of the interventions alone or in combination. This is the first update.

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic and delivery interventions in women with cholestasis of pregnancy. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 February 2013) and reference lists of identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared two intervention strategies for women with a clinical diagnosis of obstetric cholestasis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias. We independently extracted data and checked these for accuracy. MAIN

resultsWe included 21 trials with a total of 1197 women. They were mostly at moderate to high risk of bias. They assessed 11 different interventions resulting in 15 different comparisons.Compared with placebo, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) showed improvement in pruritus in five (228 women) out of seven trials. There were no significant differences in instances of fetal distress in the UDCA groups compared with placebo (average risk ratio (RR) 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.02; five trials, 304 women; random-effects analysis: T² = 0.74; I² = 48%). There were significantly fewer total preterm births with UDCA (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.73; two trials, 179 women). The difference for spontaneous preterm births was not significant (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.41 to 2.36, two trials, 109 women).Two trials (48 women) reported lower (better) pruritus scores for S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe) compared with placebo, while two other trials of 34 women reported no significant differences between groups.UDCA was more effective in improving pruritus than either SAMe (four trials; 133 women) or cholestyramine (one trial; 84 women), as was combined UDCA+SAMe when compared with placebo (one trial; 16 women) and SAMe alone (two trials; 68 women). However, combined UDCA+SAMe was no more effective than UDCA alone in regard to pruritus improvement (one trial; 53 women) and two trials (80 women) reported data were insufficient to draw any conclusions from. In one trial comparing UDCA and dexamethasone (83 women), a significant improvement with UDCA was seen only in a subgroup of women with severe obstetric cholestasis (23 women).Danxiaoling significantly improved pruritus in comparison to Yiganling. No significant differences were seen in pruritus improvement with other interventions.Eight trials reported fetal or neonatal deaths, with two deaths reported overall (both in the placebo groups).Women receiving UDCA and cholestyramine experienced nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. Guar gum caused mild abdominal distress, diarrhoea and flatulence during the first days of treatment. Women found charcoal suspension unpleasant to swallow. Dexamethasone caused nausea, dizziness and stomach pain in one woman.One trial (62 women) looked at the timing of delivery intervention. There were no stillbirths or neonatal deaths in 'early delivery' or the 'await spontaneous labour' group. There were no significant differences in the rates of caesarean section, meconium passage or admission to neonatal intensive care unit between the two groups. AUTHORS'

conclusionsDifferent approaches to assessing and reporting pruritus precluded pooling of trials comparing the effects of UDCA versus placebo on pruritus, but examination of individual trials suggests that UDCA significantly improves pruritus, albeit by a small amount. Fewer instances of fetal distress/asphyxial events were seen in the UDCA groups when compared with placebo but the difference was not statistically significant. Large trials of UDCA to determine fetal benefits or risks are needed.A single trial was too small to rule in or out a clinically important effect of early term delivery on caesarean section.There is insufficient evidence to indicate that SAMe, guar gum, activated charcoal, dexamethasone, cholestyramine, Salvia, Yinchenghao decoction (YCHD), Danxioling and Yiganling, or Yiganling alone or in combination are effective in treating women with cholestasis of pregnancy.

Indexed as

CharcoalCholagogues and CholereticsCholestasisCholestyramine ResinDrugs, Chinese HerbalFemaleGalactansHumansMannansPlant GumsPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPruritusRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicS-AdenosylmethionineUrsodeoxycholic AcidCharcoalCholagogues and CholereticsCholestyramine ResinDrugs, Chinese HerbalGalactansguar gumMannansPlant GumsS-AdenosylmethionineUrsodeoxycholic Acid

Identifiers

PMID23794285
PMCPMC7043272
OpenAlexW1962513881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.