↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotic prophylaxis during the second and third trimester to reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes and morbidity

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
251 Mendeley
Title
Antibiotic prophylaxis during the second and third trimester to reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes and morbidity
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002250.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thinkhamrop, Jadsada, Hofmeyr, G Justus, Adetoro, Olalekan, Lumbiganon, Pisake, Ota, Erika, Jadsada Thinkhamrop, G Justus Hofmeyr, Olalekan Adetoro, Pisake Lumbiganon, Erika Ota

Abstract

Several studies have suggested that prophylactic antibiotics given during pregnancy improved maternal and perinatal outcomes, while others have shown no benefit and some have reported adverse effects. To determine the effect of prophylactic antibiotics on maternal and perinatal outcomes during the second and third trimester of pregnancy for all women or women at risk of preterm delivery. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved articles. Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic antibiotic treatment with placebo or no treatment for women in the second or third trimester of pregnancy before labour. We assessed trial quality and extracted data. The review included eight randomised controlled trials. Approximately 4300 women were recruited to detect the effect of prophylactic antibiotic administration on pregnancy outcomes. Primary outcomesAntibiotic prophylaxis did not reduce the risk of preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (risk ratio (RR) 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 1.49 (one trial, 229 women), low quality evidence) or preterm delivery (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.09 (six trials, 3663 women), highquality evidence). However, preterm delivery was reduced in the subgroup of pregnant women with a previous preterm birth who had bacterial vaginosis (BV) during the current pregnancy (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.88 (one trial, 258 women)), but there was no reduction in the subgroup of pregnant women with previous preterm birth without BV during the pregnancy (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.77 (two trials, 500 women)). A reduction in the risk of postpartum endometritis (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92 (one trial, 196 women)) was observed in high-risk pregnant women (women with a history of preterm birth, low birthweight, stillbirth or early perinatal death) and in all women (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.82 (three trials, 627 women), moderate quality evidence). There was no difference in low birthweight (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.39 (four trials; 978 women)) or neonatal sepsis (RR 11.31; 95% CI 0.64 to 200.79) (one trial, 142 women)); and blood culture confirming sepsis was not reported in any of the studies. Secondary outcomesAntibiotic prophylaxis reduced the risk of prelabour rupture of membranes (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.78 (one trial, 229 women), low quality evidence) and gonococcal infection (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.94 (one trial, 204 women)). There were no differences observed in other secondary outcomes (congenital abnormality; small-for-gestational age; perinatal mortality), whilst many other secondary outcomes (e.g. intrapartum fever needing treatment with antibiotics) were not reported in included trials.Regarding the route of antibiotic administration, vaginal antibiotic prophylaxis during pregnancy did not prevent infectious pregnancy outcomes. The overall risk of bias was low, except that incomplete outcome data produced high risk of bias in some studies. The quality of the evidence using GRADE was assessed as low for preterm prelabour rupture of membranes, high for preterm delivery, moderate for postpartum endometritis, low for prelabour rupture of membranes, and very low for chorioamnionitis. Intrapartum fever needing treatment with antibiotics was not reported in any of the included studies. Antibiotic prophylaxis did not reduce the risk of preterm prelabour rupture of membranes or preterm delivery (apart from in the subgroup of women with a previous preterm birth who had bacterial vaginosis). Antibiotic prophylaxis given during the second or third trimester of pregnancy reduced the risk of postpartum endometritis, term pregnancy with pre-labour rupture of membranes and gonococcal infection when given routinely to all pregnant women. Substantial bias possibly exists in the review's results because of a high rate of loss to follow-up and the small numbers of studies included in each of our analyses. There is also insufficient evidence on possible harmful effects on the baby. Therefore, we conclude that there is not enough evidence to support the use of routine antibiotics during pregnancy to prevent infectious adverse effects on pregnancy outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 251 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Serbia 1 <1%
Unknown 244 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 15%
Student > Bachelor 29 12%
Researcher 28 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Other 18 7%
Other 48 19%
Unknown 65 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 9%
Social Sciences 15 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 3%
Other 31 12%
Unknown 68 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 01 November 2021.
All research outputs
#2,267,028
of 19,539,469 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,940
of 11,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,535
of 242,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#118
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,539,469 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
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 242,315 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.