Search

Background: The detection and diagnosis of caries at the initial (non-cavitated) and moderate (enamel) levels of severity is fundamental to achieving and maintaining good oral health and prevention of oral diseases. An increasing array of methods of early caries detection have been proposed that could potentially support traditional methods of detection and diagnosis. Earlier identification of disease could afford patients the opportunity of less invasive treatment with less destruction of tooth tissue, reduce the need for treatment with aerosol-generating procedures, and potentially result in a reduced cost of care to the patient and to healthcare services., Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of different visual classification systems for the detection and diagnosis of non-cavitated coronal dental caries for different purposes (detection and diagnosis) and in different populations (children or adults)., Search Methods: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist undertook a search of the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 30 April 2020); Embase Ovid (1980 to 30 April 2020); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov, to 30 April 2020); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 30 April 2020). We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles., Selection Criteria: We included diagnostic accuracy study designs that compared a visual classification system (index test) with a reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs). This included cross-sectional studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of single index tests and studies that directly compared two or more index tests. Studies reporting at both the patient or tooth surface level were included. In vitro and in vivo studies were considered. Studies that explicitly recruited participants with caries into dentine or frank cavitation were excluded. We also excluded studies that artificially created carious lesions and those that used an index test during the excavation of dental caries to ascertain the optimum depth of excavation., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data independently and in duplicate using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form based on QUADAS-2 specific to the review context. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy were determined using the bivariate hierarchical method to produce summary points of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and regions, and 95% prediction regions. The comparative accuracy of different classification systems was conducted based on indirect comparisons. Potential sources of heterogeneity were pre-specified and explored visually and more formally through meta-regression., Main Results: We included 71 datasets from 67 studies (48 completed in vitro) reporting a total of 19,590 tooth sites/surfaces. The most frequently reported classification systems were the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) (36 studies) and Ekstrand-Ricketts-Kidd (ERK) (15 studies). In reporting the results, no distinction was made between detection and diagnosis. Only two studies were at low risk of bias across all four domains, and 15 studies were at low concern for applicability across all three domains. The patient selection domain had the highest proportion of high risk of bias studies (49 studies). Four studies were assessed at high risk of bias for the index test domain, nine for the reference standard domain, and seven for the flow and timing domain. Due to the high number of studies on extracted teeth concerns regarding applicability were high for the patient selection and index test domains (49 and 46 studies respectively). Studies were synthesised using a hierarchical bivariate method for meta-analysis. There was substantial variability in the results of the individual studies: sensitivities ranged from 0.16 to 1.00 and specificities from 0 to 1.00. For all visual classification systems the estimated summary sensitivity and specificity point was 0.86 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.90) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.82) respectively, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 20.38 (95% CI 14.33 to 28.98). In a cohort of 1000 tooth surfaces with 28% prevalence of enamel caries, this would result in 40 being classified as disease free when enamel caries was truly present (false negatives), and 163 being classified as diseased in the absence of enamel caries (false positives). The addition of test type to the model did not result in any meaningful difference to the sensitivity or specificity estimates (Chi 2 (4) = 3.78, P = 0.44), nor did the addition of primary or permanent dentition (Chi 2 (2) = 0.90, P = 0.64). The variability of results could not be explained by tooth surface (occlusal or approximal), prevalence of dentinal caries in the sample, nor reference standard. Only one study intentionally included restored teeth in its sample and no studies reported the inclusion of sealants. We rated the certainty of the evidence as low, and downgraded two levels in total for risk of bias due to limitations in the design and conduct of the included studies, indirectness arising from the in vitro studies, and inconsistency of results., Authors' Conclusions: Whilst the confidence intervals for the summary points of the different visual classification systems indicated reasonable performance, they do not reflect the confidence that one can have in the accuracy of assessment using these systems due to the considerable unexplained heterogeneity evident across the studies. The prediction regions in which the sensitivity and specificity of a future study should lie are very broad, an important consideration when interpreting the results of this review. Should treatment be provided as a consequence of a false-positive result then this would be non-invasive, typically the application of fluoride varnish where it was not required, with low potential for an adverse event but healthcare resource and finance costs. Despite the robust methodology applied in this comprehensive review, the results should be interpreted with some caution due to shortcomings in the design and execution of many of the included studies. Studies to determine the diagnostic accuracy of methods to detect and diagnose caries in situ are particularly challenging. Wherever possible future studies should be carried out in a clinical setting, to provide a realistic assessment of performance within the oral cavity with the challenges of plaque, tooth staining, and restorations, and consider methods to minimise bias arising from the use of imperfect reference standards in clinical studies., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common arrhythmia in clinical practice, is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Screening for AF in asymptomatic patients has been proposed as a way of reducing the burden of the disease by detecting people who would benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation therapy before the onset of symptoms. However, for screening to be an effective intervention, it must improve the detection of AF and provide benefit for those detected earlier as a result of screening., Objectives: This review aims to answer the following questions.Does systematic screening increase the detection of AF compared with routine practice? Which combination of screening population, strategy and test is most effective for detecting AF compared with routine practice? What safety issues and adverse events may be associated with individual screening programmes? How acceptable is the intervention to the target population? What costs are associated with systematic screening for AF?, Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE (Ovid) up to 11 November 2015. We searched other relevant research databases, trials registries and websites up to December 2015. We also searched reference lists of identified studies for potentially relevant studies, and we contacted corresponding authors for information about additional published or unpublished studies that may be relevant. We applied no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing screening for AF with routine practice in people 40 years of age and older were eligible. Two review authors (PM and CT) independently selected trials for inclusion., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors (PM and CT) independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to present results for the primary outcome, which is a dichotomous variable. As we identified only one study for inclusion, we performed no meta-analysis. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) method to assess the quality of the evidence and GRADEPro to create a 'Summary of findings' table., Main Results: One cluster-randomised controlled trial met the inclusion criteria for this review. This study compared systematic screening (by invitation to have an electrocardiogram (ECG)) and opportunistic screening (pulse palpation during a general practitioner (GP) consultation for any reason, followed by an ECG if pulse was irregular) versus routine practice (normal case finding on the basis of clinical presentation) in people 65 years of age or older.Results show that both systematic screening and opportunistic screening of people over 65 years of age are more effective than routine practice (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.26; and OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.29, respectively; both moderate-quality evidence). We found no difference in the effectiveness of systematic screening and opportunistic screening (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.37; low-quality evidence). A subgroup analysis found that systematic screening and opportunistic screening were more effective in men (OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.76; and OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.19, respectively) than in women (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.62; and OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.93, respectively). No adverse events associated with screening were reported.The incremental cost per additional case detected by opportunistic screening was GBP 337, compared with GBP 1514 for systematic screening. All cost estimates were based on data from the single included trial, which was conducted in the UK between 2001 and 2003., Authors' Conclusions: Evidence suggests that systematic screening and opportunistic screening for AF increase the rate of detection of new cases compared with routine practice. Although these approaches have comparable effects on the overall AF diagnosis rate, the cost of systematic screening is significantly greater than the cost of opportunistic screening from the perspective of the health service provider. Few studies have investigated effects of screening in other health systems and in younger age groups; therefore, caution needs to be exercised in relation to transferability of these results beyond the setting and population in which the included study was conducted.Additional research is needed to examine the effectiveness of alternative screening strategies and to investigate the effects of the intervention on risk of stroke for screened versus non-screened populations.

Background: Many women undergoing an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle will not achieve a live birth. Failure at the embryo transfer stage may be due to lack of good-quality embryo/s, lack of uterine receptivity, or the transfer technique itself. Numerous methods, including the use of ultrasound guidance for proper catheter placement in the endometrial cavity, have been suggested as more effective techniques of embryo transfer. This review evaluates the efficacy of ultrasound-guided embryo transfer (UGET) compared with 'clinical touch' (CTET), which is the traditional method of embryo transfer and relies on the clinician's tactile senses to judge when the transfer catheter is in the correct position., Objectives: To determine whether ultrasound guidance compared with clinical touch improves pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing embryo transfer during ART cycles., Search Methods: For the 2016 update of this review, we ran updated searches in the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register (May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library, May 2015), MEDLINE (2009 to May 2015), and EMBASE (2009 to May 2015). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings: American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO). There were no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included only randomised controlled trials., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials and extracted data from those selected. We calculated odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. No outcomes were reported using continuous data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main findings using the GRADE working group methods., Main Results: This systematic review now has 21 included studies (four of which we added in the 2016 update), two studies awaiting assessment, and 47 excluded studies. In total, data for meta-analyses were available in 21 trials (n = 6218 women), of which only four reported live births.UGET was associated with an increased chance of a live birth/ongoing pregnancy compared with CTET (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.65; 13 trials; n = 5859 women; I(2) = 74%; low-quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis by including only trials with low risk of selection bias or by using a random-effects model did not alter the effect. We estimate that for women with a chance of a live birth/ongoing pregnancy of 23% using CTET, this would increase to between 28% and 33% using UGET. We considered the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology to be low.UGET was associated with an increase in the chance of a clinical pregnancy (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.45; 20 trials; n = 6711 women; I(2) = 42%; moderate-quality evidence). We identified no differences between groups for the incidence of adverse events including multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage. These events were relatively rare, and sample sizes limited the ability to detect such differences., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence suggests ultrasound guidance improves the chance of live birth/ongoing and clinical pregnancies compared with clinical touch, without increasing the chance of multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage. Methodological limitations included: only four studies reporting details of both computerised randomisation techniques and adequate allocation concealment, only four studies reported on the outcome of live birth, and none of the nine studies that reported on ongoing pregnancy reported on live birth, suggesting possible reporting bias. Adequate reporting of randomisation and allocation concealment will improve the quality of future studies. The primary outcome measure of future studies should be the reporting of live births per woman randomised.

Background: Symphysis fundal height (SFH) measurement is commonly practiced primarily to detect fetal intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). Undiagnosed IUGR may lead to fetal death as well as increase perinatal mortality and morbidity., Objectives: The objective of this review is to compare SFH measurement with serial ultrasound measurement of fetal parameters or clinical palpation to detect abnormal fetal growth (IUGR and large-for-gestational age), and improving perinatal outcome., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved articles., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials including quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials involving pregnant women with singleton fetuses at 20 weeks' gestation and above comparing tape measurement of SFH with serial ultrasound measurement of fetal parameters or clinical palpation using anatomical landmarks., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy., Main Results: One trial involving 1639 women was included. It compared SFH measurement with clinical abdominal palpation.There was no difference in the two reported primary outcomes of incidence of small-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.90, low quality evidence) or perinatal death.(RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.07; participants = 1639, low quality evidence). There were no data on the neonatal detection of large-for-gestational age (variously defined by authors). There was no difference in the reported secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycaemia, admission to neonatal nursery, admission to the neonatal nursery for IUGR (low quality evidence), induction of labour and caesarean section (very low quality evidence). The trial did not address the other outcomes specified in the 'Summary of findings' table (intrauterine death; neurodevelopmental outcome in childhood). GRADEpro software was used to assess the quality of evidence, downgrading of evidence was based on including a small single study with unclear risk of bias and a wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to determine whether SFH measurement is effective in detecting IUGR. We cannot therefore recommended any change of current practice. Further trials are needed.

Background: Manual fetal manipulation has been suggested to improve the efficiency of antepartum fetal heart rate testing., Objectives: The objective of this review was to assess the merits or adverse effects of the use of manual fetal manipulation in conjunction with tests of fetal wellbeing., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2013)., Selection Criteria: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials assessing the use of fetal manipulation versus mock stimulation, no stimulation or other types of stimulation, used in conjunction with cardiotocography or other tests of fetal wellbeing., Data Collection and Analysis: Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We contacted authors of published and unpublished trials for further information., Main Results: We included four trials with a total of 1280 women with 2670 episodes of participation. No trial was at low risk of bias for all domains and only two trials were at low risk of bias for both selection and attrition bias.Fetal manual manipulation decreased the incidence of non-reactive antenatal cardiotocography test compared to mock or no stimulation. However, this was not statistically significant (average risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 6.20, I² = 96%; two trials, N = 2350). There was also no significant reduction in the mean testing time to achieve a reactive result (mean difference -2.29 minutes, 95% CI -9.61 minutes to 5.03 minutes, I² = 97%; two trials, N = 560).Comparing fetal manual manipulation with vibroacoustic stimulation, there was no significant difference in the incidence of non-reactive cardiotocography or the need for contraction-stress test.There were no data available on other outcomes such as perinatal mortality, fetal distress, maternal anxiety and gestation at delivery., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of manual fetal manipulation during cardiotocography or other tests of fetal wellbeing. More studies of manual fetal manipulation that utilises standardised protocol should be encouraged.

Background: Vaginal examinations have become a routine intervention in labour as a means of assessing labour progress. Used at regular intervals, either alone or as a component of the partogram (a pre-printed form providing a pictorial overview of the progress of labour), the aim is to assess if labour is progressing physiologically, and to provide an early warning of slow progress. Abnormally slow progress can be a sign of labour dystocia, which is associated with maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, particularly in low-income countries where appropriate interventions cannot easily be accessed. However, over-diagnosis of dystocia can lead to iatrogenic morbidity from unnecessary intervention (e.g. operative vaginal birth or caesarean section). It is, therefore, important to establish whether or not the routine use of vaginal examinations is an effective intervention, both as a diagnostic tool for true labour dystocia, and as an accurate measure of physiological labour progress., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness, acceptability and consequences of digital vaginal examination(s) (alone or within the context of the partogram) with other strategies, or different timings, to assess progress during labour at term., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 February 2013) and reference lists of identified studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vaginal examinations (including digital assessment of the consistency of the cervix, and the degree of dilation and position of the opening of the uterus (cervical os); and position and station of the fetal presenting part, with or without abdominal palpation) compared with other ways of assessing progress of labour. We also included studies assessing different timings of vaginal examinations. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. We also excluded trials with a primary focus on assessing progress of labour using the partogram (of which vaginal examinations is one component) as this is covered by another Cochrane review. However, studies where vaginal examinations were used within the context of the partogram were included if the studies were randomised according to the vaginal examination component., Data Collection and Analysis: Three review authors assessed the studies for inclusion in the review. Two authors undertook independent data extraction and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. A third review author also checked data extraction and risk of bias. Data entry was checked., Main Results: We found two studies that met our inclusion criteria but they were of unclear quality. One study, involving 307 women, compared vaginal examinations with rectal examinations, and the other study, involving 150 women, compared two-hourly with four-hourly vaginal examinations. Both studies were of unclear quality in terms of risk of selection bias, and the study comparing the timing of the vaginal examinations excluded 27% (two hourly) to 28% (four hourly) of women after randomisation because they no longer met the inclusion criteria.When comparing routine vaginal examinations with routine rectal examinations to assess the progress of labour, we identified no difference in neonatal infections requiring antibiotics (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 8.07, one study, 307 infants). There were no data on the other primary outcomes of length of labour, maternal infections requiring antibiotics and women's overall views of labour. The study did show that significantly fewer women reported that vaginal examination was very uncomfortable compared with rectal examinations (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.70, one study, 303 women). We identified no difference in the secondary outcomes of augmentation, caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth, operative vaginal birth, perinatal mortality and admission to neonatal intensive care.Comparing two-hourly vaginal examinations with four-hourly vaginal examinations in labour, we found no difference in length of labour (mean difference in minutes (MD) -6.00, 95% CI -88.70 to 76.70, one study, 109 women). There were no data on the other primary outcomes of maternal or neonatal infections requiring antibiotics, and women's overall views of labour. We identified no difference in the secondary outcomes of augmentation, epidural for pain relief, caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and operative vaginal birth., Authors' Conclusions: On the basis of women's preferences, vaginal examination seems to be preferred to rectal examination. For all other outcomes, we found no evidence to support or reject the use of routine vaginal examinations in labour to improve outcomes for women and babies. The two studies included in the review were both small, and carried out in high-income countries in the 1990s.  It is surprising that there is such a widespread use of this intervention without good evidence of effectiveness, particularly considering the sensitivity of the procedure for the women receiving it, and the potential for adverse consequences in some settings.The effectiveness of the use and timing of routine vaginal examinations in labour, and other ways of assessing progress in labour, including maternal behavioural cues, should be the focus of new research as a matter of urgency. Women's views of ways of assessing labour progress should be given high priority in any future research in this area.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in clinical practice and is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Screening for AF in asymptomatic patients has been proposed as a way of reducing the burden of the disease by detecting people who would benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation therapy prior to the onset of symptoms. However, for screening to be an effective intervention it must improve the detection of AF and provide benefit for those who are detected earlier as a result of screening., Objectives: The primary objective of this review was to examine whether screening programmes increase the detection of new cases of AF compared to routine practice. The secondary objectives were to identify which combination of screening strategy and patient population is most effective, as well as assessing any safety issues associated with screening, its acceptability within the target population and the costs involved., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE (Ovid) up to March 2012. Other relevant research databases, trials registries and websites were searched up to June 2012. Reference lists of identified studies were also searched for potentially relevant studies and we contacted corresponding authors for information about additional published or unpublished studies that may be relevant. No language restrictions were applied., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies comparing screening for AF with routine practice in people aged 40 years and over were eligible. Two authors (PM, CT or MF) independently selected the trials for inclusion., Data Collection and Analysis: Assessment of risk of bias and data extraction were performed independently by two authors (PM, CT). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to present the results for the primary outcome, which is a dichotomous variable. Since only one included study was identified, no meta-analysis was performed., Main Results: One cluster randomised controlled trial met the inclusion criteria for this review. This study compared systematic screening (by invitation to have an electrocardiogram (ECG)) and opportunistic screening (pulse palpation during a general practitioner (GP) consultation for any reason followed by an ECG if pulse was irregular) to routine practice (normal case finding on the basis of clinical presentation) in people aged 65 years or older. The risk of bias in the included study was judged to be low.Both systematic and opportunistic screening of people over the age of 65 years are more effective than routine practice (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.26 and OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.29, respectively). The number needed to screen in order to detect one additional case compared to routine practice was 172 (95% CI 94 to 927) for systematic screening and 167 (95% CI 92 to 806) for opportunistic screening. Both systematic and opportunistic screening were more effective in men (OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.76 and OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.19, respectively) than in women (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.62 and OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.93, respectively). No data on the effectiveness of screening in different ethnic or socioeconomic groups were available. There were insufficient data to compare the effectiveness of screening programmes in different healthcare settings.Systematic screening was associated with a better overall uptake rate than opportunistic screening (53% versus 46%) except in the ≥ 75 years age group where uptake rates were similar (43% versus 42%). In both screening programmes men were more likely to participate than women (57% versus 50% in systematic screening, 49% versus 41% in opportunistic screening) and younger people (65 to 74 years) were more likely to participate than people aged 75 years and over (61% versus 43% systematic, 49% versus 42% opportunistic). No adverse events associated with screening were reported.The incremental cost per additional case detected by opportunistic screening was GBP 337, compared to GBP 1514 for systematic screening. All cost estimates were based on data from the single included trial, which was conducted in the UK between 2001 and 2003., Authors' Conclusions: Systematic and opportunistic screening for AF increase the rate of detection of new cases compared with routine practice. While both approaches have a comparable effect on the overall AF diagnosis rate, the cost of systematic screening is significantly more than that of opportunistic screening from the perspective of the health service provider. The lack of studies investigating the effect of screening in other health systems and younger age groups means that caution needs to be exercised in relation to the transferability of these results beyond the setting and population in which the included study was conducted.Additional research is needed to examine the effectiveness of alternative screening strategies and to investigate the effect of the intervention on the risk of stroke for screened versus non-screened populations.

Background: Symphysis fundal height (SFH) measurement is commonly practiced primarily to detect fetal intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). Undiagnosed IUGR may lead to fetal death as well as increase perinatal mortality and morbidity., Objectives: The objective of this review is to compare SFH measurement with serial ultrasound measurement of fetal parameters or clinical palpation to detect abnormal fetal growth (IUGR and large-for-gestational age), and improving perinatal outcome., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 January 2012) and reference lists of retrieved articles., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials including quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials involving pregnant women with singleton fetuses at 20 weeks' gestation and above comparing tape measurement of SFH with serial ultrasound measurement of fetal parameters or clinical palpation using anatomical landmarks., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, trial quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy., Main Results: One trial involving 1639 women was included. It compared SFH measurement with clinical abdominal palpation.There was no difference in the two reported primary outcomes of incidence of small-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.90) or perinatal death. There was no difference in the reported secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycaemia, admission to neonatal nursery, admission to the neonatal nursery for IUGR, induction of labour and caesarean section., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to determine whether SFH measurement is effective in detecting IUGR. We cannot therefore recommended any change of current practice. Further trials are needed.

Background: Repeat digital cervical assessment (RDCA - examination of the cervix with a finger) has been promoted as a routine intervention in the antenatal clinic as a screening test for the risk of preterm birth (that is, birth occurring before 37 weeks of gestation)., Objectives: To assess the effect of repeat digital cervical assessment during pregnancy for the risk of preterm birth and other adverse effects for mother and baby., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (September 2009) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3)., Selection Criteria: All known randomized clinical trials comparing repeat digital cervical assessment with internal examination limited to clinical indication or no internal examination. We have not included studies where repeat cervical assessment is only a component of complex interventions targeted at decreasing preterm birth., Data Collection and Analysis: We evaluated relevant studies for meeting the inclusion criteria and methodological quality without considering their results. Three review authors extracted the data. For all data analyses, we entered data based on the principle of intention to treat. We calculated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous data., Main Results: We included two trials that enrolled a total of 7163 women. Preterm birth before 37 weeks, was reported in both trials. The odds ratio for birth before 37 weeks was 1.05 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.31; two trials, 6070 women). One trial (involving 5836 women) found no significant difference between the two treatment arms for the following outcomes: preterm birth before 34 weeks; preterm, prelabour rupture of membranes; hospital admission before 37 weeks; caesarean section; use of tocolytic drugs; low birthweight; very low birthweight, stillbirth, neonatal death, neonatal intensive care admissions; use of health services. The other prespecified outcomes were not evaluated in the included studies. We did not conduct the planned subgroup analyses due to insufficient data., Authors' Conclusions: We found no evidence to support the use of RDCA in pregnancy to reduce the prevalence of preterm birth. We have found insufficient evidence to assess adverse effects of the intervention.

Background: Many women undergoing an Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) cycle will not achieve a live birth. Failure at the embryo transfer stage may be due to lack of good quality embryo/s, lack of uterine receptivity, or the transfer technique itself. Numerous methods, including the use of ultrasound guidance for proper catheter placement in the endometrial cavity, have been suggested as a more effective technique of embryo transfer. This review evaluates the effectiveness of ultrasound guided embryo transfer (UGET) compared with 'clinical touch' (CTET) the traditional method of embryo transfer., Objectives: To determine whether ultrasound guidance influences treatment outcomes in women undergoing embryo transfer (ET) during assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles., Search Strategy: Electronic databases were searched in November 2009. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (searched November 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2009), MEDLINE (1970-2009), EMBASE (1985-2009), BIO Extracts (1980-2009). Relevant conference proceedings were also hand searched (ASRM, ESHRE and FIGO)., Selection Criteria: Only randomised controlled trials were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials and extracted data from those selected., Main Results: This update identified 59 potential trials of which 42 were excluded. Data for analysis was available in seventeen studies. One study reported live births and personal communication resulted in data relating to this outcome being obtained in two additional studies. There is no evidence of a significant difference in the outcome of live birth (OR 1.14 (95%CI0.93 to 1.39; P=0.02) although heterogeneity was high (64%) and the results should be interpreted with caution. Seven studies reported on ongoing pregnancies. The ongoing pregnancies per woman randomised associated with UGET (441/1254) was significantly higher than for clinical touch (350/1218) OR 1.38, 95%CI 1.16 to 1.64, P<0.0003). No statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events were identified between the comparison groups. These events are relatively rare and sample sizes limit the ability to detect such differences., Authors' Conclusions: The studies are limited by their quality with only two studies reporting details of both computerised randomisation techniques and adequate allocation concealment. Ultrasound guidance does appear to improve the chances of live/ongoing and clinical pregnancies compared with clinical touch methods. The quality of future studies should be improved with adequate reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and power calculations. The primary outcome measure of future studies should be the reporting of live births per woman randomised.

Background: Manual fetal manipulation has been suggested to improve the efficiency of antepartum fetal heart rate testing., Objectives: The objective of this review was to assess the merits or adverse effects of the use of manual fetal manipulation in conjunction with tests of fetal wellbeing., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register in June 2001., Selection Criteria: All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials assessing the merits of the use of fetal manipulation in conjunction with tests of fetal wellbeing., Data Collection and Analysis: Both reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Authors of published and unpublished trials were contacted for further information., Main Results: Only two trials with a total of 1090 women with 2110 episodes of participation were included. Manual fetal manipulation did not decrease the incidence of non-reactive antenatal cardiotocography test (odds ratio 1.28 confidence interval 0.94-1.74)., Reviewer's Conclusions: Manual fetal manipulation has not been shown to reduce the incidence of non-reactive cardiotocography. Trials of manual fetal manipulation should take into consideration that there have not been any benefits demonstrated as yet.