Erratum to: Study protocol: differential effects of diet and physical activity based interventions in pregnancy on maternal and fetal outcomes: individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis and health economic evaluation.

Erratum to: Study protocol: differential effects of diet and physical activity based interventions in pregnancy on maternal and fetal outcomes: individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis and health economic evaluatio

Impact of maternal education on response to lifestyle interventions to reduce gestational weight gain: Individual participant data meta-Analysis

Objectives To identify if maternal educational attainment is a prognostic factor for gestational weight gain (GWG), and to determine the differential effects of lifestyle interventions (diet based, physical activity based or mixed approach) on GWG, stratified by educational attainment. Design Individual participant data meta-Analysis using the previously established International Weight Management in Pregnancy (i-WIP) Collaborative Group database (https://iwipgroup.wixsite.com/collaboration). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data Statement guidelines were followed. Data sources Major electronic databases, from inception to February 2017. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials on diet and physical activity-based interventions in pregnancy. Maternal educational attainment was required for inclusion and was categorised as higher education ( 65tertiary) or lower education ( 64secondary). Risk of bias Cochrane risk of bias tool was used. Data synthesis Principle measures of effect were OR and regression coefficient. Results Of the 36 randomised controlled trials in the i-WIP database, 21 trials and 5183 pregnant women were included. Women with lower educational attainment had an increased risk of excessive (OR 1.182; 95% CI 1.008 to 1.385, p =0.039) and inadequate weight gain (OR 1.284; 95% CI 1.045 to 1.577, p =0.017). Among women with lower education, diet basedinterventions reduced risk of excessive weight gain (OR 0.515; 95% CI 0.339 to 0.785, p = 0.002) and inadequate weight gain (OR 0.504; 95% CI 0.288 to 0.884, p=0.017), and reduced kg/week gain (B-0.055; 95% CI-0.098 to-0.012, p=0.012). Mixed interventions reduced risk of excessive weight gain for women with lower education (OR 0.735; 95% CI 0.561 to 0.963, p=0.026). Among women with high education, diet based interventions reduced risk of excessive weight gain (OR 0.609; 95% CI 0.437 to 0.849, p=0.003), and mixed interventions reduced kg/week gain (B-0.053; 95% CI-0.069 to-0.037,p<0.001). Physical activity based interventions did not impact GWG when stratified by education. Conclusions Pregnant women with lower education are at an increased risk of excessive and inadequate GWG. Diet based interventions seem the most appropriate choice for these women, and additional support through mixed interventions may also be beneficial

External validation of prognostic models to predict stillbirth using the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) Network database: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Objective Stillbirth is a potentially preventable complication of pregnancy. Identifying women at high risk of stillbirth can guide decisions on the need for closer surveillance and timing of delivery in order to prevent fetal death. Prognostic models have been developed to predict the risk of stillbirth, but none has yet been validated externally. In this study, we externally validated published prediction models for stillbirth using individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess their predictive performance. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, DH-DATA and AMED databases were searched from inception to December 2020 to identify studies reporting stillbirth prediction models. Studies that developed or updated prediction models for stillbirth for use at any time during pregnancy were included. IPD from cohorts within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) Network were used to validate externally the identified prediction models whose individual variables were available in the IPD. The risk of bias of the models and cohorts was assessed using the Prediction study Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). The discriminative performance of the models was evaluated using the C-statistic, and calibration was assessed using calibration plots, calibration slope and calibration-in-the-large. Performance measures were estimated separately in each cohort, as well as summarized across cohorts using random-effects meta-analysis. Clinical utility was assessed using net benefit. Results Seventeen studies reporting the development of 40 prognostic models for stillbirth were identified. None of the models had been previously validated externally, and the full model equation was reported for only one-fifth (20%, 8/40) of the models. External validation was possible for three of these models, using IPD from 19 cohorts (491 201 pregnant women) within the IPPIC Network database. Based on evaluation of the model development studies, all three models had an overall high risk of bias, according to PROBAST. In the IPD meta-analysis, the models had summary C-statistics ranging from 0.53 to 0.65 and summary calibration slopes ranging from 0.40 to 0.88, with risk predictions that were generally too extreme compared with the observed risks. The models had little to no clinical utility, as assessed by net benefit. However, there remained uncertainty in the performance of some models due to small available sample sizes. Conclusions The three validated stillbirth prediction models showed generally poor and uncertain predictive performance in new data, with limited evidence to support their clinical application. The findings suggest methodological shortcomings in their development, including overfitting. Further research is needed to further validate these and other models, identify stronger prognostic factors and develop more robust prediction models. (c) 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.Peer reviewe

Fetal rotation during vacuum extractions for prolonged labor: a prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to investigate fetal head rotation during vacuum extraction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study from November 2013 to July 2016 in seven European hospitals. Fetal head position was determined with transabdominal or transperineal ultrasound and categorized as occiput anterior (OA), occiput transverse (OT) or occiput posterior (OP) position. Main outcome was the proportion of fetuses rotating during vacuum extraction. Secondary outcomes were conversion of delivery method, duration of vacuum extraction, umbilical artery pH <7.10 and agreement between clinical and ultrasound assessments. RESULTS: The study population comprised 165 women. During vacuum extraction 117/119 (98%) remained in OA and two fetuses rotated to OP position. Rotation from OT to OA position occurred in 14/19 (74%) and to OP position in 5/19 (26%). Rotation from OP to OA position occurred in 15/25 (60%), and 10/25 (40%) fetuses remained in OP position. Delivery information was missing in two cases. The conversion rate from vacuum extraction to cesarean section or forceps was 10% in the OA group vs. 23% in the non-OA group; p < 0.05. The estimated duration of vacuum extraction was significantly shorter in OA fetuses, 7 min vs. 10 min (log rank test p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in umbilical artery pH < 7.10 between OA and non-OA position. Cohens Kappa of agreement between clinical and ultrasound assessments was 0.42 (95% CI 0.26-0.57). CONCLUSION: Most fetuses in OP or OT positions rotated to OA position during vacuum extraction, but the proportion of failed vacuum extractions remained high

Gestational weight gain outside the Institute of Medicine recommendations and adverse pregnancy outcomes: analysis using individual participant data from randomised trials

BACKGROUND: High Body Mass Index (BMI) and gestational weight gain (GWG) affect an increasing number of pregnancies. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has issued recommendations on the optimal GWG for women according to their pre-pregnancy BMI (healthy, overweight or obese). It has been shown that pregnant women rarely met the recommendations; however, it is unclear by how much. Previous studies also adjusted the analyses for various women's characteristics making their comparison challenging. // METHODS: We analysed individual participant data (IPD) of healthy women with a singleton pregnancy and a BMI of 18.5 kg/m2 or more from the control arms of 36 randomised trials (16 countries). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to describe the association between GWG outside (above or below) the IOM recommendations (2009) and risks of caesarean section, preterm birth, and large or small for gestational age (LGA or SGA) infants. The association was examined overall, within the BMI categories and by quartile of GWG departure from the IOM recommendations. We obtained aOR using mixed-effects logistic regression, accounting for the within-study clustering and a priori identified characteristics. // RESULTS: Out of 4429 women (from 33 trials) meeting the inclusion criteria, two thirds gained weight outside the IOM recommendations (1646 above; 1291 below). The median GWG outside the IOM recommendations was 3.1 kg above and 2.7 kg below. In comparison to GWG within the IOM recommendations, GWG above was associated with increased odds of caesarean section (aOR 1.50; 95%CI 1.25, 1.80), LGA (2.00; 1.58, 2.54), and reduced odds of SGA (0.66; 0.50, 0.87); no significant effect on preterm birth was detected. The relationship between GWG below the IOM recommendation and caesarean section or LGA was inconclusive; however, the odds of preterm birth (1.94; 1.31, 2.28) and SGA (1.52; 1.18, 1.96) were increased. // CONCLUSIONS: Consistently with previous findings, adherence to the IOM recommendations seem to help achieve better pregnancy outcomes. Nevertheless, even in the context of clinical trials, women find it difficult to adhere to them. Further research should focus on identifying ways of achieving a healthier GWG as defined by the IOM recommendations