Search

BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as blood loss of 500 mL or more after childbirth, is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. It is possible to prevent complications of PPH with timely and appropriate detection and management. However, implementing the best methods of PPH prevention, detection and management can be challenging, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVES: Our overall objective was to explore the perceptions and experiences of women, community members, lay health workers, and skilled healthcare providers who have experience with PPH or with preventing, detecting, and managing PPH, in community or health facility settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and grey literature on 13 November 2022 with no language restrictions. We then performed reference checking and forward citation searching of the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored perceptions and experiences of PPH prevention, detection, and management among women, community members, traditional birth attendants, healthcare providers, and managers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used three-stage maximum variation sampling to ensure diversity in terms of relevance of the study to the review objectives, richness of data, and coverage of critical contextual elements: setting (region, country income level), perspective (type of participant), and topic (prevention, detection, management). We extracted data using a data extraction form designed for this review. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence, and we used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. To identify factors that may influence intervention implementation, we mapped each review finding to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability, Motivation, and Opportunity model of Behaviour change (COM-B). We used the Behaviour Change Wheel to explore implications for practice. MAIN RESULTS: We included 67 studies and sampled 43 studies for our analysis. Most were from low- or middle-income countries (33 studies), and most included the perspectives of women and health workers. We downgraded our confidence in several findings from high confidence to moderate, low, or very-low confidence, mainly due to concerns about how the studies were conducted (methodological limitations) or concerns about missing important perspectives from some types of participants or in some settings (relevance). In many communities, bleeding during and after childbirth is considered normal and necessary to expel impurities and restore and cleanse the womans body after pregnancy and birth (moderate confidence). In some communities, people have misconceptions about causes of PPH or believe that PPH is caused by supernatural powers or evil spirits that punish women for ignoring or disobeying social rules or for past mistakes (high confidence). For women who give birth at home or in the community, female family members or traditional birth attendants are the first to recognise excess bleeding after birth (high confidence). Family members typically take the decision of whether and when to seek care if PPH is suspected, and these family members are often influenced by trusted traditional birth attendants or community midwives (high confidence). If PPH is identified for women birthing at home or in the community, decision-making about the subsequent referral and care pathway can be multifaceted and complex (high confidence). First responders to PPH are not always skilled or trained healthcare providers (high confidence). In health facilities, midwives may consider it easy to implement visual estimation of blood loss with a kidney dish or under-pad, but difficult to accurately interpret the amount of blood loss (very low confidence). Quantifying (rather than estimating) blood loss may be a complex and contentious change of practice for health workers (low confidence). Women who gave birth in health facilities and experienced PPH described it as painful, embarrassing, and traumatic. Partners or other family members also found the experience stressful. While some women were dissatisfied with their level of involvement in decision-making for PPH management, others felt health workers were best placed to make decisions (moderate confidence). Inconsistent availability of resources (drugs, medical supplies, blood) causes delays in the timely management of PPH (high confidence). There is limited availability of misoprostol in the community owing to stockouts, poor supply systems, and the difficulty of navigating misoprostol procurement for community health workers (moderate confidence). Health workers described working on the maternity ward as stressful and intense due to short staffing, long shifts, and the unpredictability of emergencies. Exhausted and overwhelmed staff may be unable to appropriately monitor all women, particularly when multiple women are giving birth simultaneously or on the floor of the health facility; this could lead to delays in detecting PPH (moderate confidence). Inadequate staffing, high turnover of skilled health workers, and appointment of lower-level cadres of health workers are key challenges to the provision of quality PPH care (high confidence). Through team-based simulation training, health workers of different cadres (doctors, midwives, lay health workers) can develop a shared mental model to help them work quickly, efficiently, and amicably as a team when managing women with PPH (moderate confidence). AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight how improving PPH prevention, detection, and management is underpinned by a complex system of interacting roles and behaviours (community, women, health workers of different types and with different experiences). Multiple individual, sociocultural, and environmental factors influence the decisions and behaviours of women, families, communities, health workers, and managers. It is crucial to consider the broader health and social systems when designing and implementing PPH interventions to change or influence these behaviours. We have developed a set of prompts that may help programme managers, policymakers, researchers, and other key stakeholders to identify and address factors that affect implementation and scale-up of interventions to improve PPH prevention, detection, and management.

BackgroundPostpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of global maternal deaths, accounting for 30-50% of maternal deaths in sub-Saharan Africa. Most PPH-related deaths are preventable with timely detection and initiation of care, which may be facilitated by using a clinical care bundle. We explore influences on current PPH detection and management and on the future implementation of a new PPH bundle (E-MOTIVE) in low-resource, high-burden settings.MethodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework were conducted with 45 healthcare providers across nine hospitals in Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa, to identify barriers and enablers to current PPH detection and management and future implementation of a new PPH care bundle. Data were analysed using thematic and framework analysis. The Behaviour Change Wheel was used to identify potential interventions to address identified barriers and enablers.ResultsInfluences on current PPH detection and management fell under 12 domains: Environmental Context and Resources (drug and staff shortages), Skills (limited in-service training), Knowledge (variable understanding of the recommended practice), Behaviour Regulation (limited quality improvement culture), Beliefs about Consequences (drawbacks from inaccurate detection), Emotion (stress from the unpredictability of PPH), Social Influence (teamwork), Memory, Attention and Decision-making (limited guideline use), Social/Professional Role and Identity (role clarity), Beliefs about Capabilities (confidence in managing PPH), Reinforcement (disciplinary procedures) and Goals (PPH as a priority). Influences on bundle uptake included: Beliefs about Consequences (perceived benefits of new blood loss measurement tool), Environmental Context and Resources (high cost of drugs and new tools), Memory, Attention and Decision-making (concerns about whether bundle fits current practice), Knowledge (not understanding 'bundled' approach), Social Influence (acceptance by women and staff) and Intention (limited acceptance of 'bundled' approach over existing practice). These influences were consistent across countries. Proposed interventions included: Education, Training, Modelling (core and new skills), Enablement (monitoring uptake), Persuasion (leadership role) and Environmental Restructuring (PPH emergency trolley/kit).ConclusionsA wide range of individual, socio-cultural and environmental barriers and enablers to improving PPH detection and management exist in these settings. We identified a range of interventions that could improve PPH care and the implementation of new care bundles in this context.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04341662.

BackgroundPostpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal death globally. Most PPH deaths can be avoided with timely detection and management; however, critical challenges persist. A multi-country cluster-randomised trial (E-MOTIVE) will introduce a clinical care bundle for early detection and first-response PPH management in hospital settings. This formative qualitative study aimed to explore healthcare providers' knowledge and practices of PPH detection and management after vaginal birth, to inform design and implementation of E-MOTIVE.MethodsBetween July 2020-June 2021, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 45 maternity healthcare providers (midwives, nurses, doctors, managers) of nine hospitals in Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa. A thematic analysis approach was used.ResultsFour key themes were identified, which varied across contexts: in-service training on emergency obstetric care; limited knowledge about PPH; current approaches to PPH detection; and current PPH management and associated challenges. PPH was recognised as an emergency but understanding of PPH varied. Early PPH detection was limited by the subjective nature of visual estimation of blood loss. Lack of expertise on PPH detection and using visual estimation can result in delays in initiation of PPH management. Shortages of trained staff and essential resources, and late inter-hospital referrals were common barriers to PPH management.ConclusionThere are critical needs to address context-specific barriers to early and timely detection and management of PPH in hospital settings. These findings will be used to develop evidence-informed implementation strategies, such as improved in-service training, and objective measurement of blood loss, which are key components of the E-MOTIVE trial (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04341662).

BackgroundPostpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. When PPH occurs, early identification of bleeding and prompt management using evidence-based guidelines, can avert most PPH-related severe morbidities and deaths. However, adherence to the World Health Organization recommended practices remains a critical challenge. A potential solution to inefficient and inconsistent implementation of evidence-based practices is the application of a 'clinical care bundle' for PPH management. A clinical care bundle is a set of discrete, evidence-based interventions, administered concurrently, or in rapid succession, to every eligible person, along with teamwork, communication, and cooperation. Once triggered, all bundle components must be delivered. The E-MOTIVE project aims to improve the detection and first response management of PPH through the implementation of the "E-MOTIVE" bundle, which consists of (1) Early PPH detection using a calibrated drape, (2) uterine Massage, (3) Oxytocic drugs, (4) Tranexamic acid, (5) Intra Venous fluids, and (6) genital tract Examination and escalation when necessary. The objective of this paper is to describe the protocol for the formative phase of the E-MOTIVE project, which aims to design an implementation strategy to support the uptake of this bundle into practice.MethodsWe will use behavior change and implementation science frameworks [e.g. capability, opportunity, motivation and behavior (COM-B) and theoretical domains framework (TDF)] to guide data collection and analysis, in Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania. There are four methodological components: qualitative interviews; surveys; systematic reviews; and design workshops. We will triangulate findings across data sources, participant groups, and countries to explore factors influencing current PPH detection and management, and potentially influencing E-MOTIVE bundle implementation. We will use these findings to develop potential strategies to improve implementation, which will be discussed and agreed with key stakeholders from each country in intervention design workshops.DiscussionThis formative protocol outlines our strategy for the systematic development of the E-MOTIVE implementation strategy. This focus on implementation considers what it would take to support roll-out and implementation of the E-MOTIVE bundle. Our approach therefore aims to maximize internal validity in the trial alongside future scalability, and implementation of the E-MOTIVE bundle in routine practice, if proven to be effective.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04341662.

Background Tubal ectopic pregnancies can cause significant morbidity or even death. Current treatment is with methotrexate or surgery. However, methotrexate treatment can fail in approximately 30% of women. Gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, may improve the effects of methotrexate. We assessed the efficacy of administering oral gefitinib with methotrexate, versus methotrexate alone, to treat a tubal ectopic pregnancy. Objectives To test the hypothesis a combination of gefitinib with methotrexate can increase resolution of stable tubal ectopic pregnancy without the need for surgery, compared with methotrexate alone. Design A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, superiority trial. Setting Fifty UK hospitals. Participants A target of 328 women with a stable, tubal ectopic pregnancy. Intervention Women were randomised to combination of methotrexate and gefitinib or methotrexate and placebo. All participants received a single intramuscular dose of methotrexate 50 mg/m2 and were randomised in a 1:1 ratio of oral gefitinib (250 mg daily for 7 days) or placebo. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was surgical intervention for resolution of ectopic pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were the need for an additional dose of methotrexate, time to resolution of the ectopic pregnancy, number of treatment-associated hospital visits, safety and tolerability, acceptability of treatment and return to menses. Results Between 2 November 2016 and 6 October 2021, 328 women were randomly allocated to methotrexate and gefitinib (n = 165) or methotrexate and placebo (n = 163). Three women in the placebo group withdrew. Surgical intervention occurred in 30% (50/165) of the gefitinib group and in 29% (47/160) of the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.58; adjusted risk difference −0.01, 95% confidence interval −0.10 to 0.09; p = 0.37). Without surgical intervention, median time to resolution was 28.0 days in the gefitinib group and 28.0 days in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.40). The need for additional methotrexate doses, number of additional hospital visits, participant acceptability, time to return of menses and serious adverse events were similar in both groups. Diarrhoea and rash were more common in the gefitinib group. Conclusions The addition of gefitinib to standard medical management with methotrexate to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy is not clinically effective as it does not reduce subsequent surgical intervention and is associated with higher rates of reported symptoms than placebo. Limitations We were unable to investigate how different gefitinib doses or modes of delivery would impact on the results. Future work Questions that remain unaddressed relate to the use of methotrexate and gefitinib combination treatment for other extrauterine and uterine ectopic pregnancy, such as caesarean scar pregnancies, or in the management of choriocarcinoma. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN 67795930 and EudraCT 2015-005013-76. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme and will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanistic Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 1. The gefitinib and placebo were supplied by Astra Zeneca. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Plain language summary What was the question? A tubal ectopic pregnancy is where a fertilised egg is not growing in the womb. The pregnancy cannot be saved and the woman is at risk of losing her fallopian tube and if this pregnancy is left to grow can even die. Current treatment is with methotrexate or surgery. An operation can happen because either the ectopic pregnancy has ruptured and caused internal bleeding, the medical treatment has not worked and the ectopic pregnancy needs to be removed or the patient can chose to have an operation. However, methotrexate treatment can fail in approximately 30% of women. We carried out research to see if the addition of a new drug (gefitinib, a drug used for lung cancer) to methotrexate could lower the number of women needing an operation to remove their ectopic pregnancy. What did we do? We involved 328 women with a stable tubal ectopic pregnancy, who were being treated medically with methotrexate, and randomly assigned them to have methotrexate alone or a combination of methotrexate and gefitinib. The gefitinib was taken in tablet form for 7 days, and the methotrexate was given as an injection. We followed the women up in line with their clinical care until their ectopic pregnancy resolved or they had surgery to remove the ectopic pregnancy. What did we find? The addition of gefitinib to methotrexate did not reduce the number of women who required surgery to remove their ectopic pregnancy. More women taking gefitinib experienced side effects, such as a facial rash or diarrhoea. What does this mean? Treatment with methotrexate remains the only drug treatment option for ectopic pregnancy. More research is needed. Scientific summary Background Tubal ectopic pregnancy (EP) can cause significant morbidity or even death. Current treatment is with methotrexate (MTX) or surgery. However, MTX treatment can fail in approximately 30% of women. Preclinical studies have shown that tubal implantation sites express high levels of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and that gefitinib (an EGFR antagonist) augments MTX-induced regression of pregnancy-like tissue. Clinical evidence from uncontrolled phase I and II trials has raised the possibility that a combination of MTX and gefitinib could be a more effective medical treatment than MTX alone to treat stable tubal EP. Objectives To test the hypothesis, a combination of gefitinib with MTX can increase resolution of stable tubal EP without the need for surgery, compared with MTX alone. Design A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, superiority trial. Setting This trial took place in 50 hospitals in the UK. Participants A target of 328 women with a stable, tubal EP. Intervention Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either gefitinib and MTX or matched placebo and MTX with the use of minimisation to balance trial-group assignments according to baseline human chorionic gonadotropin levels (

Background: Treatment with vaginal progesterone reduces the risk of miscarriage and preterm birth in selected high‐risk women. The hypothesis that vaginal progesterone can reduce the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) is unexplored. Objectives: To summarise the evidence on the effectiveness of vaginal progesterone to reduce the risk of HDP. Search strategy: We searched Embase (OVID), MEDLINE (OVID), PubMed, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov from inception until 20 June 2023. Selection criteria: We included placebo‐controlled randomised trials (RCTs) of vaginal progesterone for the prevention or treatment of any pregnancy complications. Data collection and analysis: We extracted absolute event numbers for HDP and pre‐eclampsia in women receiving vaginal progesterone or placebo, and meta‐analysed the data with a random effects model. We appraised the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology. Main results: The quantitative synthesis included 11 RCTs, of which three initiated vaginal progesterone in the first trimester, and eight in the second or third trimesters. Vaginal progesterone started in the first trimester of pregnancy lowered the risk of any HDP (risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53–0.93, 2 RCTs, n = 4431 women, I2 = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence) and pre‐eclampsia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41–0.92, 3 RCTs, n = 5267 women, I2 = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence) when compared with placebo. Vaginal progesterone started in the second or third trimesters was not associated with a reduction in HDP (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.67–2.12, 3 RCTs, n = 1602 women, I2 = 9%; low‐certainty evidence) or pre‐eclampsia (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71–1.31, 5 RCTs, n = 4274 women, I2 = 0%; low‐certainty evidence). Conclusions: Our systematic review found first‐trimester initiated vaginal micronised progesterone may reduce the risk of HDP and pre‐eclampsia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Pregnant women infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are more likely to experience preterm birth and their neonates are more likely to be stillborn or admitted to a neonatal unit. The World Health Organization declared in May 2023 an end to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a global health emergency. However, pregnant women are still becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and there is limited information available regarding the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE We conducted this systematic review to determine the prevalence of early pregnancy loss in women with SARS-Cov-2 infection and compare the risk to pregnant women without SARS-CoV-2 infection. SEARCH METHODS Our systematic review is based on a prospectively registered protocol. The search of PregCov19 consortium was supplemented with an extra electronic search specifically on pregnancy loss in pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 10 March 2023 in PubMed, Google Scholar, and LitCovid. We included retrospective and prospective studies of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, provided that they contained information on pregnancy losses in the first and/or second trimester. Primary outcome was miscarriage defined as a pregnancy loss before 20 weeks of gestation, however, studies that reported loss up to 22 or 24 weeks were also included. Additionally, we report on studies that defined the pregnancy loss to occur at the first and/or second trimester of pregnancy without specifying gestational age, and for second trimester miscarriage only when the study presented stillbirths and/or foetal losses separately from miscarriages. Data were stratified into first and second trimester. Secondary outcomes were ectopic pregnancy (any extra-uterine pregnancy), and termination of pregnancy. At least three researchers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and risk differences (RDs) with corresponding 95% CI and pooled the data using random effects meta-analysis. To estimate risk prevalence, we performed meta-analysis on proportions. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2. OUTCOMES We included 120 studies comprising a total of 168 444 pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection; of which 18 233 women were in their first or second trimester of pregnancy. Evidence level was considered to be of low to moderate certainty, mostly owing to selection bias. We did not find evidence of an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and miscarriage (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81–1.48; I 2 = 0.0%; RD 0.0012, 95% CI −0.0103 to 0.0127; I 2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4439 women). Miscarriage occurred in 9.9% (95% CI 6.2–14.0%; I 2 = 68%; 46 studies, 1797 women) of the women with SARS CoV-2 infection in their first trimester and in 1.2% (95% CI 0.3–2.4%; I 2 = 34%; 33 studies; 3159 women) in the second trimester. The proportion of ectopic pregnancies in women with SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.4% (95% CI 0.02–4.2%; I 2 = 66%; 14 studies, 950 women). Termination of pregnancy occurred in 0.6% of the women (95% CI 0.01–1.6%; I 2 = 79%; 39 studies; 1166 women). WIDER IMPLICATIONS Our study found no indication that SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first or second trimester increases the risk of miscarriages. To provide better risk estimates, well-designed studies are needed that include pregnant women with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection at conception and early pregnancy and consider the association of clinical manifestation and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection with pregnancy loss, as well as potential confounding factors such as previous pregnancy loss. For clinical practice, pregnant women should still be advised to take precautions to avoid risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Are morphokinetic models better at prioritizing a euploid embryo for transfer over morphological selection by an embryologist? SUMMARY ANSWER Morphokinetic algorithms lead to an improved prioritization of euploid embryos when compared to embryologist selection. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY PREFER (predicting euploidy for embryos in reproductive medicine) is a previously published morphokinetic model associated with live birth and miscarriage. The second model uses live birth as the target outcome (LB model). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Data for this cohort study were obtained from 1958 biopsied blastocysts at nine IVF clinics across the UK from January 2021 to December 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The ability of the PREFER and LB models to prioritize a euploid embryo was compared against arbitrary selection and the prediction of four embryologists using the timelapse video, blinded to the morphokinetic time stamp. The comparisons were made using calculated percentages and normalized discounted cumulative gain (NDCG), whereby an NDCG score of 1 would equate to all euploid embryos being ranked first. In arbitrary selection, the ploidy status was randomly assigned within each cycle and the NDGC calculated, and this was then repeated 100 times and the mean obtained. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Arbitrary embryo selection would rank a euploid embryo first 37% of the time, embryologist selection 39%, and the LB and PREFER ploidy morphokinetic models 46% and 47% of the time, respectively. The AUC for LB and PREFER model was 0.62 and 0.63, respectively. Morphological selection did not significantly improve the performance of both morphokinetic models when used in combination. There was a significant difference between the NDGC metric of the PREFER model versus embryologist selection at 0.96 and 0.87, respectively (t  = 14.1, P  < 0.001). Similarly, there was a significant difference between the LB model and embryologist selection with an NDGC metric of 0.95 and 0.87, respectively (t  = 12.0, P  < 0.001). All four embryologists ranked embryos similarly, with an intraclass coefficient of 0.91 (95% CI 0.82–0.95, P  < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Aside from the retrospective study design, limitations include allowing the embryologist to watch the time lapse video, potentially providing more information than a truly static morphological assessment. Furthermore, the embryologists at the participating centres were familiar with the significant variables in time lapse, which could bias the results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The present study shows that the use of morphokinetic models, namely PREFER and LB, translates into improved euploid embryo selection. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study received no specific grant funding from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Dr Alison Campbell is minor share holder of Care Fertility. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Time lapse is a technology for which patients are charged extra at participating centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate whether a Bayesian interpretation might help prevent misinterpretation of statistical findings and support authors to differentiate evidence of no effect from statistical uncertainty. Design: A Bayesian re‐analysis to determine posterior probabilities of clinically important effects (e.g., a large effect is set at a 4 percentage point difference and a trivial effect to be within a 0.5 percentage point difference). Posterior probabilities greater than 95% are considered as strong statistical evidence, and less than 95% as inconclusive. Sample: 150 major women's health trials with binary outcomes. Main Outcome Measures: Posterior probabilities of large, moderate, small and trivial effects. Results: Under frequentist methods, 48 (32%) were statistically significant (p‐value ≤ 0.05) and 102 (68%) statistically non‐significant. The frequentist and Bayesian point estimates and confidence intervals showed strong concordance. Of the statistically non‐significant trials (n = 102), the Bayesian approach classified the majority (94, 92%) as inconclusive, neither able to confirm or refute effectiveness. A small number of statistically non‐significant findings (8, 8%) were classified as having strong statistical evidence of an effect. Conclusions: Whilst almost all trials report confidence intervals, in practice most statistical findings are interpreted on the basis of statistical significance, mostly concluding evidence of no effect. Findings here suggest the majority are likely uncertain. A Bayesian approach could help differentiate evidence of no effect from statistical uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]