Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24307518›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Prophylactic antibiotics for inhibiting preterm labour with intact membranes.

Vicki Flenady, Glenda Hawley, Owen M Stock, Sara Kenyon, Nadia Badawi

Open access · greenAbstract 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 39 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 261 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Bed rest in singleton pregnancies for preventing preterm birth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Treatment strategies for intra-amniotic infection and/or inflammation in preterm labor cases.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Preterm Birth Therapies to Target Inflammation.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Vicki FlenadyTranslating Research Into Practice (TRIP) Centre - Mater Research, Mater Health Services, Level 2 Quarters Building, Annerley Road, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia, 4102.
Glenda Hawley
Owen M Stock
Sara Kenyon
Nadia Badawi
Mater Health Services · AUChildren's Hospital at Westmead · AUMater Mothers' Hospital · AUUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aetiology of preterm birth is complex and there is evidence that subclinical genital tract infection influences preterm labour in some women but the role of prophylactic antibiotic treatment in the management of preterm labour is controversial. Since rupture of the membranes is an important factor in the progression of preterm labour, it is important to see if the routine administration of antibiotics confers any benefit or causes harm, prior to membrane rupture.

objectivesTo assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotics administered to women in preterm labour with intact membranes, on maternal and neonatal outcomes. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials that compared antibiotic treatment with placebo or no treatment for women in preterm labour (between 20 and 36 weeks' gestation) with intact membranes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, and undertook quality assessment and data extraction. We contacted study authors for additional information. Results are presented using risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for data measured on a continuous scale with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). The number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) and the number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) was calculated where appropriate. MAIN

resultsIn this update (2013), with the addition of three trials (305 women), the large ORACLE II 2001 trial continues to dominate the results of this review. This review now includes a total of 14 studies randomising 7837 women. No significant difference was shown in perinatal or infant mortality for infants of women allocated to any prophylactic antibiotics compared with no antibiotics. However, an increase in neonatal deaths was shown for infants of women receiving any prophylactic antibiotics when compared with placebo (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.40; NNTH 149, 95% CI 2500 to 61). No reduction in preterm birth or other clinically important short-term outcomes for the infant were shown.Long-term child outcomes to seven years of age were available for infants in the UK enrolled in the ORACLE II trial. Comparing any antibiotics with placebo, a marginally non-statistically significant increase was shown in any functional impairment (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23) and cerebral palsy (CP) (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.34). In subgroup analysis, CP was statistically significantly increased for infants of women allocated to macrolide and beta-lactam antibiotics combined compared with placebo (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.02 to 7.88; NNTH 35, 95% CI 333 to 9).Further, exposure to any macrolide antibiotics (including erythromycin alone or erythromycin plus co-amoxiclav) versus no macrolide antibiotics (including placebo and co-amoxiclav alone) was shown to increase neonatal death (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.19; NNTH 139, 95% CI 1429 to 61), any functional impairment (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.20; NNTH 24, 95% CI 263 to 13) and CP (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.01; NNTH 64, 95% CI 286 to 29). Exposure to any beta-lactam (beta-lactam alone or in combination with macrolide antibiotics) versus no beta-lactam antibiotics resulted in more neonatal deaths (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.15; NNTH 143, 95% CI 1250 to 63) and CP (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.61; NNTH 79, 95% CI 909 to 33), however no difference was shown in functional impairment.Maternal infection was reduced with the use of any prophylactic antibiotics compared with placebo (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.86; NNTB 34, 95% CI 24 to 63) and any beta-lactam compared with no beta-lactam antibiotics (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.92; NNTB 47, 95% CI 31 to 119). However, caution should be exercised with this finding due to the possibility of bias shown by funnel plot asymmetry. Any beta-lactam compared with no beta-lactam antibiotics was associated with an increase in maternal adverse drug reaction (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.54; NNTH 17, 95% CI 526 to 7). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review did not demonstrate any benefit in important neonatal outcomes with the use of prophylactic antibiotics for women in preterm labour with intact membranes, although maternal infection may be reduced. Of concern, is the finding of short- and longer-term harm for children of mothers exposed to antibiotics. The evidence supports not giving antibiotics routinely to women in preterm labour with intact membranes in the absence of overt signs of infection.Further research is required to develop sensitive markers of subclinical infection for women in preterm labour with intact membranes, as this is a group that might benefit from future novel interventions, including new modalities of antibiotic therapy. The results of this review demonstrate the need for future trials in the area of preterm birth to include assessment of long-term neurodevelopmental outcome.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic Prophylaxisbeta-LactamsFemaleHumansMacrolidesObstetric Labor, PrematurePerinatal MortalityPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamsMacrolides

Identifiers

PMID24307518
PMCPMC11975194
OpenAlexW1633076981

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.