(searched for: 10.29328/journal.cjog.1001082)
Published: 31 March 2021
Clinical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 4, pp 025-032; https://doi.org/10.29328/journal.cjog.1001082
Internet has become an important part of our life, including during pregnancy where it is broadly used to find information (84%). The aims of this study were (1) to describe the proportion of women using Internet Social Networks (ISN) concerning their pregnancy, during pre or postpartum hospital stay, (2) to define how ISN users refer to their pregnancy and delivery on these social networks, (3) to compare anxiety level, social sustain level, sociodemographic characteristics of the both population (4) and to determine profiles of the ISN users with multiple correspondence analysis. Methods: 399 questionnaires were distributed in the postpartum wards of two academic hospitals in Paris, and 258 fully filled were retrieved. Tools: Anxiety scale (STAI- A and B), Cutrona Social Provisions Scale, sociodemographic and obstetrical questionnaire. Results: 76% (n = 195) were ISN users. We compared ISN users versus ISN non users women. Demographically, the two populations were comparable. Anxiety scores were similar in both groups, whereas social support scores showed a statistical difference in social integration. In the global population, 84% use Internet for information concerning pregnancy; this rate is higher for ISN users than ISN non users (tendency 0.058). ISN were used in priority for sharing with relatives, and 10% with other pregnant women. Concerning pregnancy, patients posted in priority the birth announcement (28%), the pregnancy announcement (23%), and the newborn’s pictures (12%). 6% posted their fetuses’ ultrasound pictures. Three clusters of ISN users were extracted with statistically different social support scores (p = 0.019) and comparable anxiety scores. The third one, with at risk profile, used ISN as social support. For all women, but specifically for younger and more socially fragile women, Internet gives to professional new perspectives to develop information and prevention tools during the perinatal period.
Published: 1 August 2021
Revista Brasileira de Hematologia E Hemoterapia, Volume 43, pp 627-637; https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1733999
Objective To compare the effects of expectant versus interventionist care in the management of pregnant women with severe preeclampsia remote from term. Data sources An electronic search was conducted in the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS, for its Spanish acronym), World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP), and OpenGrey databases. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO, for its French acronym), Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and Colombian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CJOG) websites were searched for conference proceedings, without language restrictions, up to March 25, 2020. Selection of studies Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and non-randomized controlled studies (NRSs) were included. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Data collection Studies were independently assessed for inclusion criteria, data extraction, and risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data synthesis Four RCTs and six NRS were included. Low-quality evidence from the RCTs showed that expectant care may result in a lower incidence of appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, and respiration (Apgar) scores < 7 at 5 minutes (risk ratio [RR]: 0.48; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.23%to 0.99) and a higher average birth weight (mean difference [MD]: 254.7 g; 95%CI: 98.5 g to 410.9 g). Very low quality evidence from the NRSs suggested that expectant care might decrease the rates of neonatal death (RR: 0.42; 95%CI 0.22 to 0.80), hyaline membrane disease (RR: 0.59; 95%CI: 0.40 to 0.87), and admission to neonatal care (RR: 0.73; 95%CI: 0.54 to 0.99). No maternal or fetal differences were found for other perinatal outcomes. Conclusion Compared with interventionist management, expectant care may improve neonatal outcomes without increasing maternal morbidity and mortality.