SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014
Antibiotics for prelabour rupture of membranes at or near term.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Burden and determinants of puerperal sepsis in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for the Evaluation of Antibiotic Use in Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: A Systematic Review and Semi-Structured Interview.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Maternal infection in the context of actively managed prelabor rupture of membranes at term: An observational study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Observational
- Low-dose oral misoprostol vs. oxytocin in premature rupture of membranes at ≥ 36 weeks: a comparison of labor induction outcomes and postpartum hemorrhage risk.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Effect of Universal Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Prevalence of Surgical Site Infection After Cesarean Section.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The impact of premature rupture of membrane on neonatal outcomes in infants born at 34 weeks gestation or later.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2024Article
- Risk factors of stillbirths in four district hospitals on Pemba Island, Tanzania: a prospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth for pregnant women at low risk of complications.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Vaginal Birth at Term - Part 2. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/083, December 2020).Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2022Article
- [Hygiene measures in antenatal care].Der Gynakologe · 2021Review
- Active Versus Expectant Management for Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes at 34-36 Weeks of Gestation and the Associated Adverse Perinatal Outcomes.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2020Article
- Middle-East OBGYN Graduate Education (MOGGE) Foundation Practice Guidelines: Prelabor rupture of membranes; Practice guideline No. 01-O-19.Journal of global health · 2020Article
- Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing healthcare-associated infections: a methodology study.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Common respiratory conditions of the newborn.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrelabour rupture of the membranes (PROM) at or near term (defined in this review as 36 weeks' gestation or beyond) increases the risk of infection for the woman and her baby. The routine use of antibiotics for women at the time of term PROM may reduce this risk. However, due to increasing problems with bacterial resistance and the risk of maternal anaphylaxis with antibiotic use, it is important to assess the evidence addressing risks and benefits in order to ensure judicious use of antibiotics. This review was undertaken to assess the balance of risks and benefits to the mother and infant of antibiotic prophylaxis for PROM at or near term.
objectivesTo assess the effects of antibiotics administered prophylactically to women with PROM at 36 weeks' gestation or beyond, on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials that compared outcomes for women and infants when antibiotics were administered prophylactically for prelabour rupture of the membranes at or near term, with outcomes for controls (placebo or no antibiotic). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. Additional data were received from the investigators of included studies. MAIN
resultsThis update includes an additional two studies involving 1801 women, giving a total of four included studies of 2639 women. Whereas the previous version of this review showed a statistically significant reduction in endometritis with the use of antibiotics, no such effect was shown in this update (average risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 2.31). No differences were shown on the primary outcome measures of probable early-onset neonatal sepsis (average RR 0.69, 95%; CI 0.21 to 2.33); definite early-onset neonatal sepsis (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.08 to 4.26); maternal infectious morbidity (chorioamnionitis and/or endometritis) (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.15); stillbirth (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 14.82); and perinatal mortality (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.60 to 6.55), though the number of cases in the control group for these outcomes was low. There were no cases of neonatal mortality or serious maternal outcome in the studies assessed. Caesarean section was increased with the use of antibiotics (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.61) as was duration of maternal stay in hospital (mean difference (MD) 0.06 days, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11), largely owing to one study of 1640 women where repeat caesarean section, increased baseline hypertension and pre-eclampsia were evident in the antibiotic group, despite random allocation and allocation concealment.Subgroup analyses by timing of induction (early induction versus late induction) showed no difference in either probable or definite early-onset neonatal sepsis in the early induction group (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.70 and RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.44, respectively) or the late induction group (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.13 and RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.34, respectively), although there were trends toward reduced probable and definite early-onset neonatal sepsis in the late induction group. A test for subgroup differences confirmed a differential effect of the intervention on probable early-onset neonatal sepsis between the subgroups (Chi² = 4.50, df = 1 (P = 0.03), I² = 77.8%). No difference in maternal infectious morbidity (chorioamnionitis and/or endometritis) was found in either subgroup, though again there was a trend towards reduced maternal infectious morbidly in the late induction group (average RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.47). No differences were shown in stillbirth or perinatal mortality. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes using GRADE was judged to be low to very low. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThis updated review demonstrates no convincing evidence of benefit for mothers or neonates from the routine use of antibiotics for PROM at or near term. We are unable to adequately assess the risk of short- and long-term harms from the use of antibiotics due to the unavailability of data. Given the unmeasured potential adverse effects of antibiotic use, the potential for the development of resistant organisms, and the low risk of maternal infection in the control group, the routine use of antibiotics for PROM at or near term in the absence of confirmed maternal infection should be avoided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.