Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26092137›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Antibiotic prophylaxis during the second and third trimester to reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes and morbidity.

Jadsada Thinkhamrop, G Justus Hofmeyr, Olalekan Adetoro, Pisake Lumbiganon, Erika Ota

Open access · bronzeAbstract 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. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Higher Abundance ofMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Case report :IDCases · 2021
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Jadsada ThinkhamropDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Faculty of Medicine, 123 Mittraparb Highway, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 40002.
G Justus Hofmeyr
Olalekan Adetoro
Pisake Lumbiganon
Erika Ota
Khon Kaen University · THNational Center For Child Health and Development · JPOlabisi Onabanjo University · NGWestern Cape Department of Health · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral studies have suggested that prophylactic antibiotics given during pregnancy improved maternal and perinatal outcomes, while others have shown no benefit and some have reported adverse effects.

objectivesTo determine the effect of prophylactic antibiotics on maternal and perinatal outcomes during the second and third trimester of pregnancy for all women or women at risk of preterm delivery. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic antibiotic treatment with placebo or no treatment for women in the second or third trimester of pregnancy before labour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN

resultsThe review included eight randomised controlled trials. Approximately 4300 women were recruited to detect the effect of prophylactic antibiotic administration on pregnancy outcomes. Primary outcomesAntibiotic prophylaxis did not reduce the risk of preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (risk ratio (RR) 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 1.49 (one trial, 229 women), low quality evidence) or preterm delivery (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.09 (six trials, 3663 women), highquality evidence). However, preterm delivery was reduced in the subgroup of pregnant women with a previous preterm birth who had bacterial vaginosis (BV) during the current pregnancy (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.88 (one trial, 258 women)), but there was no reduction in the subgroup of pregnant women with previous preterm birth without BV during the pregnancy (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.77 (two trials, 500 women)). A reduction in the risk of postpartum endometritis (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92 (one trial, 196 women)) was observed in high-risk pregnant women (women with a history of preterm birth, low birthweight, stillbirth or early perinatal death) and in all women (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.82 (three trials, 627 women), moderate quality evidence). There was no difference in low birthweight (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.39 (four trials; 978 women)) or neonatal sepsis (RR 11.31; 95% CI 0.64 to 200.79) (one trial, 142 women)); and blood culture confirming sepsis was not reported in any of the studies. Secondary outcomesAntibiotic prophylaxis reduced the risk of prelabour rupture of membranes (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.78 (one trial, 229 women), low quality evidence) and gonococcal infection (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.94 (one trial, 204 women)). There were no differences observed in other secondary outcomes (congenital abnormality; small-for-gestational age; perinatal mortality), whilst many other secondary outcomes (e.g. intrapartum fever needing treatment with antibiotics) were not reported in included trials.Regarding the route of antibiotic administration, vaginal antibiotic prophylaxis during pregnancy did not prevent infectious pregnancy outcomes. The overall risk of bias was low, except that incomplete outcome data produced high risk of bias in some studies. The quality of the evidence using GRADE was assessed as low for preterm prelabour rupture of membranes, high for preterm delivery, moderate for postpartum endometritis, low for prelabour rupture of membranes, and very low for chorioamnionitis. Intrapartum fever needing treatment with antibiotics was not reported in any of the included studies. AUTHORS'

conclusionsAntibiotic prophylaxis did not reduce the risk of preterm prelabour rupture of membranes or preterm delivery (apart from in the subgroup of women with a previous preterm birth who had bacterial vaginosis). Antibiotic prophylaxis given during the second or third trimester of pregnancy reduced the risk of postpartum endometritis, term pregnancy with pre-labour rupture of membranes and gonococcal infection when given routinely to all pregnant women. Substantial bias possibly exists in the review's results because of a high rate of loss to follow-up and the small numbers of studies included in each of our analyses. There is also insufficient evidence on possible harmful effects on the baby. Therefore, we conclude that there is not enough evidence to support the use of routine antibiotics during pregnancy to prevent infectious adverse effects on pregnancy outcomes.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisEndometritisFemaleFetal WeightHumansPregnancyPregnancy, High-RiskPregnancy OutcomePregnancy Trimester, SecondPregnancy Trimester, ThirdPremature BirthPremature Rupture of Fetal MembranesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVaginosis, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID26092137
PMCPMC7154219
OpenAlexW1829103609

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.