Evidence from this update supports the continued use of a single course of antenatal corticosteroids to accelerate fetal lung maturation in women at risk of preterm birth. A single course of antenatal corticosteroids could be considered routine for preterm delivery. It is important to note that most of the evidence comes from high income countries and hospital settings; therefore, the results may not be applicable to low-resource settings with high rates of infections.There is little need for further trials of a single course of antenatal corticosteroids versus placebo in singleton pregnancies in higher income countries and hospital settings. However, data are sparse in lower income settings. There are also few data regarding risks and benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in multiple pregnancies and other high-risk obstetric groups. Further information is also required concerning the optimal dose-to-delivery interval, and the optimal corticosteroid to use.We encourage authors of previous studies to provide further information, which may answer any remaining questions about the use of antenatal corticosteroids in such pregnancies without the need for further randomised controlled trials. Individual patient data meta-analysis from published trials is likely to answer some of the evidence gaps. Follow-up studies into childhood and adulthood, particularly in the late preterm gestation and repeat courses groups, are needed. We have not examined the possible harmful effects of antenatal corticosteroids in low-resource settings in this review. It would be particularly relevant to explore this finding in adequately powered prospective trials.

Analysis 1.13. Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin-to-skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 13 Mean variation in maternal breast temp.

BackgroundA core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all effectiveness trials for a specific health area. This will allow results of studies to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate, as well as ensuring that all trials contribute usable information. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative aims to support the development, reporting and adoption of COS. Central to this is a publically accessible online resource, populated with all available COS. The aim of the review we report here was to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes or domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition and to describe the methodological techniques used in these studies.MethodsWe developed a multi-faceted search strategy for electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Methodology Register). We included studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition.ResultsA total of 250 reports relating to 198 studies were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies covered various areas of health, most commonly cancer, rheumatology, neurology, heart and circulation, and dentistry and oral health. A variety of methods have been used to develop COS, including semi-structured discussion, unstructured group discussion, the Delphi Technique, Consensus Development Conference, surveys and Nominal Group Technique. The most common groups involved were clinical experts and non-clinical research experts. Thirty-one (16%) studies reported that the public had been involved in the process. The geographic locations of participants were predominantly North America (n = 164; 83%) and Europe (n = 150; 76%).ConclusionsThis systematic review identified many health areas where a COS has been developed, but also highlights important gaps. It is a further step towards a comprehensive, up-to-date database of COS. In addition, it shows the need for methodological guidance, including how to engage key stakeholder groups, particularly members of the public.

Analysis 1.11. Comparison 1 Cerclage versus no cerclage, Outcome 11 Serious respiratory morbidity (RDS or oxygen dependency a er 28 days of life

Available evidence suggests that group antenatal care is positively viewed by women and is associated with no adverse outcomes for them or for their babies. No differences in the rate of preterm birth were reported when women received group antenatal care. This review is limited because of the small numbers of studies and women, and because one study contributed 42% of the women. Most of the analyses are based on a single study. Additional research is required to determine whether group antenatal care is associated with significant benefit in terms of preterm birth or birthweight.