No abstract

Standardized terminology should assist in analysis of worldwide trends in MAR interventions and in the comparison of ART outcomes across countries and regions. This glossary will contribute to a more standardized communication among professionals responsible for ART practice, as well as those responsible for national, regional and international registries.

Objective: To present updated national birthweight percentiles for gestational age by sex for singletons born in Australia.Design and setting: Cross-sectional population-based study of 2.53 million singleton live births of infants born in Australia between 1998 and 2007.Main outcome measures: Birthweight percentiles by gestational age and sex.Results: Between 1998 and 2007 women in Australia gave birth to 2,539,237 live singleton births. Of these, 2,537,627 had gestational age between 20 and 44 weeks and non-missing sex and birthweight. Birthweight percentiles are presented by sex and gestational age for a total of 2,528,641 births after excluding 8,986 births for having outlying birthweight. Since the publication of the previous Australian birthweight percentiles in 1999, median birthweight for term babies has increased between 0 and 25g for boys and between 5 and 45g for girls.Conclusions: There has been only a small increase in birthweight percentiles for babies of both sexes and most gestational ages since 1991-1994. These national percentiles will provide a current Australian reference for clinicians and researchers assessing size at birth.3

No abstract

BACKGROUND Fertility preservation (FP) is an important quality of life issue for cancer survivors of reproductive age. Despite the existence of broad international guidelines, the delivery of oncofertility care, particularly amongst paediatric, adolescent and young adult patients, remains a challenge for healthcare professionals (HCPs). The quality of oncofertility care is variable and the uptake and utilization of FP remains low. Available guidelines fall short in providing adequate detail on how oncofertility models of care (MOC) allow for the real-world application of guidelines by HCPs. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the components of oncofertility care as defined by patient and clinician representatives, and identify the barriers, facilitators and challenges, so as to improve the implementation of oncofertility services. SEARCH METHODS A systematic scoping review was conducted on oncofertility MOC literature published in English between 2007 and 2016, relating to 10 domains of care identified through consumer research: communication, oncofertility decision aids, age-appropriate care, referral pathways, documentation, training, supportive care during treatment, reproductive care after cancer treatment, psychosocial support and ethical practice of oncofertility care. A wide range of electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, AEIPT, Education Research Complete, ProQuest and VOCED) were searched in order to synthesize the evidence around delivery of oncofertility care. Related citations and reference lists were searched. The review was undertaken following registration (International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) registration number CRD42017055837) and guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). OUTCOMES A total of 846 potentially relevant studies were identified after the removal of duplicates. All titles and abstracts were screened by a single reviewer and the final 147 papers were screened by two reviewers. Ten papers on established MOC were identified amongst the included papers. Data were extracted from each paper and quality scores were then summarized in the oncofertility MOC summary matrix. The results identified a number of themes for improving MOC in each domain, which included: the importance of patients receiving communication that is of a higher quality and in different formats on their fertility risk and FP options; improving provision of oncofertility care in a timely manner; improving access to age-appropriate care; defining the role and scope of practice of all HCPs; and improving communication between different HCPs. Different forms of decision aids were found useful for assisting patients to understand FP options and weigh up choices. WIDER IMPLICATIONS This analysis identifies core components for de...

Background: Amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) is a rare but severe complication of pregnancy. A recent systematic review highlighted apparent differences in the incidence, with studies estimating the incidence of AFE to be more than three times higher in North America than Europe. The aim of this study was to examine population-based regional or national data from five high-resource countries in order to investigate incidence, risk factors and outcomes of AFE and to investigate whether any variation identified could be ascribed to methodological differences between the studies. Methods: We reviewed available data sources on the incidence of AFE in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the USA. Where information was available, the risk factors and outcomes of AFE were examined.

ObjectiveTo generate a global reference for caesarean section (CS) rates at health facilities.DesignCross‐sectional study.SettingHealth facilities from 43 countries.Population/SampleThirty eight thousand three hundred and twenty‐four women giving birth from 22 countries for model building and 10 045 875 women giving birth from 43 countries for model testing.MethodsWe hypothesised that mathematical models could determine the relationship between clinical‐obstetric characteristics and CS. These models generated probabilities of CS that could be compared with the observed CS rates. We devised a three‐step approach to generate the global benchmark of CS rates at health facilities: creation of a multi‐country reference population, building mathematical models, and testing these models.Main outcome measuresArea under the ROC curves, diagnostic odds ratio, expected CS rate, observed CS rate.ResultsAccording to the different versions of the model, areas under the ROC curves suggested a good discriminatory capacity of C‐Model, with summary estimates ranging from 0.832 to 0.844. The C‐Model was able to generate expected CS rates adjusted for the case‐mix of the obstetric population. We have also prepared an e‐calculator to facilitate use of C‐Model (www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/c-model/en/).ConclusionsThis article describes the development of a global reference for CS rates. Based on maternal characteristics, this tool was able to generate an individualised expected CS rate for health facilities or groups of health facilities. With C‐Model, obstetric teams, health system managers, health facilities, health insurance companies, and governments can produce a customised reference CS rate for assessing use (and overuse) of CS.Tweetable abstractThe C‐Model provides a customized benchmark for caesarean section rates in health facilities and systems.

No abstract