Evidence
This page contains a snapshot of featured content which highlights evidence addressing key clinical questions including areas of uncertainty. Please see the main topic reference list for details of all sources underpinning this topic.
BMJ Best Practice evidence tables
Evidence tables provide easily navigated layers of evidence in the context of specific clinical questions, using GRADE and a BMJ Best Practice Effectiveness rating. Follow the links at the bottom of the table, which go to the related evidence score in the main topic text, providing additional context for the clinical question. Find out more about our evidence tables.
This table is a summary of the analysis reported in a Cochrane Clinical Answer that focuses on the above important clinical question.
Confidence in the evidence is high or moderate to high where GRADE has been performed and the intervention is more effective/beneficial than the comparison for key outcomes.
Population: Pregnant women at risk of preterm birth who had received a single course of prenatal corticosteroids at least one week prior to trial entry
Intervention: Repeated doses of corticosteroids
Comparison: Single course of corticosteroid
| Outcome | Effectiveness (BMJ rating)? | Confidence in evidence (GRADE)? |
|---|---|---|
Fetal, neonatal, or infant mortality (<1 year of age) | No statistically significant difference | Moderate |
Respiratory distress syndrome | Favors intervention | High |
Severe lung disease | Favors intervention | Moderate |
Chronic lung disease | No statistically significant difference | High |
Severe intraventricular hemorrhage (grade 3/4) | No statistically significant difference | Moderate |
Necrotizing enterocolitis | No statistically significant difference | Moderate |
Composite of serious outcomes | Favors intervention | Moderate |
Total deaths (subgroups: children up to 2-3 years; children up to 5-8 years) | No statistically significant difference | Moderate |
Neurodevelopmental impairment at early childhood follow‐up (2-3 years) | No statistically significant difference | High |
Neurocognitive impairment at mid‐to-later childhood follow‐up (5-8 years) | No statistically significant difference | Low |
Note The Cochrane review which underpins this Cochrane Clinical Answer (CCA) notes that the evidence for outcomes in adolescence and adulthood is insufficient with further research required.
This evidence table is related to the following section/s:
Cochrane Clinical Answers
Cochrane Clinical Answers (CCAs) provide a readable, digestible, clinically focused entry point to rigorous research from Cochrane systematic reviews. They are designed to be actionable and to inform decision making at the point of care and have been added to relevant sections of the main Best Practice text.
- For pregnant women with asymptomatic bacteriuria, what are the effects of antibiotics?
- For women in labor, what are the benefits and harms of continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM)?
- Does fetal fibronectin (FFN) testing help reduce the risk of preterm birth?
- In pregnant women with preterm rupture of membranes, how do antibiotics affect outcomes?
- How does dexamethasone compare with betamethasone for women and babies at risk of preterm birth?
- In women at risk of preterm birth, how do repeated doses of corticosteroids compare with a single course to improve fetal, neonatal, and infant outcomes?
- What are the effects of calcium channel blockers for inhibiting preterm labor and birth?
- In women in spontaneous preterm labor, what are the benefits and harms of betamimetics compared with placebo or each other?
- Is there randomized controlled trial evidence to support the use of betamimetics for maintenance therapy after threatened preterm labor?
- Do prophylactic betamimetics given to women with a singleton pregnancy at risk of preterm delivery improve outcomes?
- In women with a twin pregnancy, what are the benefits and harms of prophylactic oral betamimetics?
Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer