Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26042617›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitors for treating preterm labour.

Hanna E Reinebrant, Cynthia Pileggi-Castro, Carla L T Romero, Rafaela A N Dos Santos, Sailesh Kumar, João Paulo Souza, Vicki Flenady

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04404686 (Vaginal Indomethacin Versus Oral Nifedipine for Preterm Labor; a Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.5field-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.

NCT04404686 phase2 / phase3unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Vaginal Indomethacin Versus Oral Nifedipine for Preterm Labor; a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorHadassah Medical OrganizationRan2020 to 2025Enrolled300ConditionsObstetric Labor, PrematureArmsIndomethacin, Nifedipine
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 211 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Tocolytics for delaying preterm birth: a network meta-analysis (0924).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Techniques for assisting difficult delivery at caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Ethanol for preventing preterm birth in threatened preterm labor.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Therapeutic role of nifedipine in threatened preterm labor: Current evidence and future perspectives.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Considerations for obstetric management of births 22-25 weeks' gestation.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Review
  9. Implementation of antepartum preterm birth interventions: A scoping review.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The hormonal control of parturition.Physiological reviews · 2024
    Review
  13. A historical narrative review through the field of tocolysis in threatened preterm birth.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. The Pathophysiology of Labor Dystocia: Theme with Variations.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Preterm Birth Therapies to Target Inflammation.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Hanna E ReinebrantTranslating Research Into Practice (TRIP) Centre, Mater Research Institute - The University of Queensland (MRI-UQ), Level 2 Aubigny Place, Mater Health Services, Annerley Road, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 4102.
Cynthia Pileggi-Castro
Carla L T Romero
Rafaela A N Dos Santos
Sailesh Kumar
João Paulo Souza
Vicki Flenady
Universidade de São Paulo · BRMater Health Services · AUUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreterm birth is a major cause of perinatal mortality and morbidity. Cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitors inhibit uterine contractions, are easily administered and appear to have few maternal side effects. However, adverse effects have been reported in the fetus and newborn as a result of exposure to COX inhibitors.

objectivesTo assess the effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes of COX inhibitors administered as a tocolytic agent to women in preterm labour when compared with (i) placebo or no intervention and (ii) other tocolytics. In addition, to compare the effects of non-selective COX inhibitors with COX-2 selective inhibitors. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (24 August 2014). We also contacted recognised experts and searched reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised trials in which COX inhibitors were used for tocolysis for women in labour between 20 and 36 completed weeks' gestation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data. We sought additional information from study authors. Results are presented using risk ratio (RR; dichotomous data) and mean difference (MD; continuous data) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The number needed to treat for benefit (NNTB) and the number needed to treat for harm (NNTH) were calculated for statistically different categorical outcomes. MAIN

resultsWith the addition of seven studies with a total of 684 women, this review now includes outcome data from 20 studies including 1509 women. The non-selective COX inhibitor indomethacin was used in 15 studies. The overall quality of the included studies was considered moderate to low.Three small studies (102 women), two of which were conducted in the 1980's, compared COX inhibition (indomethacin only) with placebo. No difference was shown in birth less than 48 hours after trial entry (average RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.28; two studies with 70 women). Indomethacin resulted in a reduction in preterm birth (before completion of 37 weeks of gestation) in one small study (36 women) (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.62; NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 4); and an increase in gestational age at birth (average MD 3.59 weeks, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.52; two studies with 66 women) and birthweight (MD 716.34 g, 95% CI 425.52 to 1007.16; two studies with 67 infants). No difference was shown in measures of neonatal morbidity or neonatal mortality.Compared with betamimetics, COX inhibitors resulted in a reduction in birth less than 48 hours after trial entry (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.96; NNTB 7, 95% CI 6 to 120; two studies with 100 women) and preterm birth (before completion of 37 weeks of gestation) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.99; NNTB 6, 95% CI 4 to 236; two studies with 80 women) although no benefit was shown in terms of neonatal morbidity or mortality. COX inhibition was also associated with fewer maternal adverse affects compared with betamimetics (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31; NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; five studies with 248 women) and maternal adverse effects requiring cessation of treatment (average RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.49; NNTB 5, CI 95% 5 to 9; three studies with 166 women).No differences were shown when comparing COX inhibitors with magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) (seven studies with 792 women) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (two studies with 230 women) in terms of prolonging pregnancy or for any fetal/neonatal outcomes. There were also no differences in very preterm birth (before completion of 34 weeks of gestation) and no maternal deaths occurred in the one study that reported on this outcome. However COX inhibitors resulted in fewer maternal adverse affects when compared with MgSO4 (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.62; NNTB 11, 95% CI 9 to 17; five studies with 635 women).A comparison of non-selective COX inhibitors versus any COX-2 inhibitor (two studies with 54 women) did not demonstrate any differences in maternal, fetal or neonatal outcomes.No data were available to assess COX inhibitors compared with oxytocin receptor antagonists (ORAs). Further, no data were available on extremely preterm birth (before 28 weeks of gestation), longer-term infant outcomes or costs. AUTHORS'

conclusionsIn this review, no clear benefit for COX inhibitors was shown over placebo or any other tocolytic agents. While some benefit was demonstrated in terms of postponement of birth for COX inhibitors over placebo and betamimetics and also maternal adverse effects over betamimetics and MgSO4, due to the limitations of small numbers, minimal data on safety, lack of longer-term outcomes and generally low quality of the studies included in this review, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence on which to base decisions about the role of COX inhibition for women in preterm labour. Further well-designed tocolytic studies are required to determine short- and longer-term infant benefit of COX inhibitors over placebo and other tocolytics, particularly CCBs and ORAs. Another important focus for future studies is identifying whether COX-2 inhibitors are superior to non-selective COX inhibitors. All future studies on tocolytics for women in preterm labour should assess longer-term effects into early childhood and also costs.

Indexed as

Calcium Channel BlockersCyclooxygenase InhibitorsFemaleHumansIndomethacinMagnesium SulfatePregnancyPremature BirthRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTocolytic AgentsCalcium Channel BlockersCyclooxygenase InhibitorsIndomethacinMagnesium SulfateTocolytic Agents

Identifiers

PMID26042617
PMCPMC7068172
OpenAlexW1854558735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.