What do systematic reviews say?

All routine Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound

All routine Doppler ultrasound probably leads to lower stillbirth ‐ Fetal/umbilical vessels only compared with no Doppler ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.34 [0.12, 0.95]
  2 studies · 6877 participants
  Moderate

All routine Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound

All routine Doppler ultrasound showed no clear difference in stillbirth ‐ Fetal/umbilical vessels + uterine artery compared with no Doppler ultrasound (low certainty).

• Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.41 [0.44, 4.46]
  2 studies · 5276 participants
  Low

Computerised antenatal CTG vs traditional antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complications)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Traditional antenatal CTG vs no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings table ‐ Midwife continuity models vs other models of care

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Midwife continuity models changes fetal loss before 24 weeks gestation compared with other models of care (very low certainty).

• Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.82 [0.67, 1.01]
  12 studies · 15913 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings table ‐ Midwife continuity models vs other models of care

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Midwife continuity of care models changes fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation compared with other models of care (very low certainty).

• Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.24 [0.73, 2.13]
  12 studies · 16122 participants
  Very low

Intensity of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus ‐ strict glycaemic targets vs less‐tight glycaemic targets (child (as neonate, child, adult) outcomes)

• Different intensities of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 1499 participants
  Low

Cervical pessary vs vaginal progesterone

Cervical pessary showed no clear difference in fetal/infant mortality compared with vaginal progesterone (low certainty).

• Cervical pessary for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancies 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.97 [0.5, 7.7]
  2 studies · 265 participants
  Low

Cervical pessary vs cervical cerclage

Cervical pessary showed no clear difference in fetal/infant mortality compared with cervical cerclage (low certainty).

• Cervical pessary for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancies 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.38 [0.02, 7.93]
  1 study · 13 participants
  Low

Cervical pessary vs no treatment

Cervical pessary showed no clear difference in fetal/infant mortality compared with no treatment (low certainty).

• Cervical pessary for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancies 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.93 [0.58, 1.48]
  5 studies · 1830 participants
  Low

Oral misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone

Oral misoprostol may leads to lower uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared with vaginal dinoprostone (low certainty).

• Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.49 [0.4, 0.59]
  11 studies · 9084 participants
  Low

Oral misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone

Oral misoprostol probably leads to lower uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate changes compared with vaginal dinoprostone (moderate certainty).

• Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.83 [0.72, 0.97]
  9 studies · 8171 participants
  Moderate

Oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol

Oral misoprostol may leads to lower uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared with vaginal misoprostol (low certainty).

• Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.69 [0.53, 0.92]
  25 studies · 4857 participants
  Low

Oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol

Oral misoprostol may leads to lower uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate changes compared with vaginal misoprostol (low certainty).

• Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.69 [0.49, 0.99]
  16 studies · 3212 participants
  Low

Oral misoprostol vs intravenous (IV) oxytocin

It is very uncertain whether oral misoprostol changes uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared with intravenous oxytocin (very low certainty).

• Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.66 [0.19, 2.26]
  3 studies · 331 participants
  Very low

Oral misoprostol vs intravenous (IV) oxytocin

It is very uncertain whether oral misoprostol changes uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate changes compared with intravenous oxytocin (very low certainty).

• Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 6 [0.76, 47.6]
  2 studies · 220 participants
  Very low

Oral misoprostol vs placebo/no treatment

It is very uncertain whether oral misoprostol changes uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared with placebo/no treatment (very low certainty).

• Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 5.15 [0.25, 105.31]
  3 studies · 495 participants
  Very low

Oral misoprostol vs mechanical methods

Oral misoprostol showed no clear difference in uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared with mechanical methods (low certainty).

• Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.31 [0.78, 2.21]
  4 studies · 2828 participants
  Low

Oral misoprostol vs mechanical methods

It is very uncertain whether oral misoprostol changes uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate changes compared with mechanical methods (very low certainty).

• Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.64 [0.3, 1.38]
  3 studies · 2506 participants
  Very low

Oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly vs oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly

• Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 64 participants
  Very low