↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Amnioinfusion for chorioamnionitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

3 X users
1 Wikipedia page


11 Dimensions

Readers on

245 Mendeley
Amnioinfusion for chorioamnionitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011622.pub2
Pubmed ID

G Justus Hofmeyr, Joseph AK Kiiza


Chorioamnionitis is a leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Amnioinfusion aims at reducing the adverse effects of chorioamnionitis by dilution of the infective organisms or by an anti-microbial effect of the fluid infused. The objective of this review was to determine the effect of amnioinfusion on clinical and sub-clinical chorioamnionitis, fetal well-being, fetal heart rate characteristics and perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 July 2016), PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 July 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of amnioinfusion (treatment group) versus no amnioinfusion in women with chorioamnionitis.We would have also considered trials comparing amnioinfusion with sham amnioinfusion; different types or volumes of amnioinfusion fluid but none were identified.Cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. We identified one study published in abstract form but it did not contain any numerical data and has therefore been excluded. Studies using a cross-over design are not an appropriate study design and thus were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Two review authors independently assessed potential studies for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Both review authors independently extracted data and data were checked for accuracy. We included one small trial (with data from 34 participants) comparing transcervical amnioinfusion with no amnioinfusion. The trial was considered to be at a high risk of bias overall, due to small numbers, inconsistency in the reporting and lack of information on blinding. Meta-analysis was not possible. Transcervical amnioinfusion was with room temperature saline at 10 mL per minute for 60 minutes, then 3 mL per minute until delivery versus no amnioinfusion. All women received intrauterine pressure catheter, acetaminophen and antibiotics (ampicillin or, if receiving Group B beta streptococcal prophylaxis, penicillin and gentamycin). We did not identify any trials that used transabdominal amnioinfusion.Compared to no amnioinfusion, transcervical amnioinfusion had no clear effect on the incidence of postpartum endometritis (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 7.87; absolute risk 176/1000 (95% CI 34 to 96) versus 118/1000;low-quality evidence). Nor was there a clear effect in the incidence of neonatal infection (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 68.84; absolute risk 0/1000 (95% CI 0 to 0) versus 0/1000; low-quality evidence). The outcome of perinatal death or severe morbidity (such as neonatal encephalopathy, intraventricular haemorrhage, admission to intensive/high care) was not reported in the included trial.In terms of this review's secondary outcomes, the rate of caesarean section was the same in both groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.83; absolute risk 294/1000 (95% CI 103 to 832) versus 294/1000; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the duration of maternal antibiotic treatment between the amnioinfusion and no amnioinfusion control group (mean difference (MD) 16 hours, 95% CI -1.75 to 33.75); nor in the duration of hospitalisation (MD 3.00 hours, 95% CI -15.49 to 21.49). The study did not report any information about how many babies had a low Apgar score at five minutes after birth.Women in the amnioinfusion group had a lower temperature at delivery compared to women in the control group (MD -0.38°C, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.02) but this outcome was not pre-specified in the protocol for this review.The majority of this review's secondary outcomes were not reported in the included study. There is insufficient evidence to fully evaluate the effectiveness of using transcervical amnioinfusion for chorioamnionitis and to assess the safety of this intervention or women's satisfaction. We did not identify any trials that used transabdominal amnioinfusion. The evidence in this review can neither support nor refute the use of transcervical amnioinfusion outside of clinical trials. We included one small study that reported on a limited number of outcomes of interest in this review. The numbers included in this review are too small for meaningful assessment of substantive outcomes, where reported. For those outcomes we assessed using GRADE (postpartum endometritis, neonatal infection, and caesarean section), we downgraded the quality of the evidence to low - with downgrading decisions based on small numbers and a lack of information on blinding. The included study did not report on this review's other primary outcome (perinatal death or severe morbidity).The reduction in pyrexia, though not a pre-specified outcome of this review, may be of relevance in terms of benefits to the fetus of reduced exposure to heat. We postulate that the temperature reduction found may be a direct cooling effect of amnioinfusion with room temperature fluid, rather than reduction of infection. Larger trials are needed to confirm and extend the findings of the trial reviewed here. These should be randomised controlled trials; participants, women with chorioamnionitis; interventions, amnioinfusion; comparisons, no amnioinfusion; outcomes, maternal and perinatal outcomes including neurodevelopmental measures.Further research is justified to determine possible benefits or risks of amnioinfusion for chorioamnionitis, and to investigate possible benefits of reducing temperature in fetuses considered at risk of neurological damage. Research should include randomised trials to examine transcervical or transabdominal amnioinfusion compared with no infusion for chorioamnionitis and examine outcomes listed in the methods of this review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 242 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 11%
Student > Master 25 10%
Researcher 22 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 7%
Other 17 7%
Other 57 23%
Unknown 78 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 11%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Unspecified 11 4%
Psychology 6 2%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 81 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2022.
All research outputs
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 352,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.