Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Betamiméticos orales para el tratamiento de mantenimiento después de la amenaza de parto prematuro

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Bivins 1993 {published data only}

Bivins H, Newman R, Fyfe D, Campbell B, Stramm S. Randomized trial of oral indomethacin and terbutaline sulfate for the long‐term suppression of preterm labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;169:1065‐70.

Brown 1981 {published data only}

Brown S, Tejani N. Terbutaline sulfate in the prevention of recurrence of premature labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1981;57:22‐5.

Creasy 1980 {published data only}

Creasy R, Golbus M, Laros R, Parer J, Roberts J. Oral ritodrine maintenance in the treatment of preterm labour. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1980;137:212‐9.

Holleboom 1996 {published data only}

Holleboom C, Merkus J, Van Elferen L, Keirse M. Double‐blind evaluation of ritodrine sustained released for oral maintenance of tocolysis after active preterm labour. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1996;103:702‐5.

How 1995 {published data only}

How H, Allen S, Vogel B, Gall S, Spinnato J. Oral terbutaline in the outpatient management of preterm labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994;170:390.
How H, Hughes S, Vogel R, Gall S, Spinnato J. Oral terbutaline in the outpatient management of preterm labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1995;173:1518‐22.

Kopelman 1989 {published data only}

Kopelman J, Duff P, Read J. Randomized comparison of oral terbutaline and ritodrine for preventing recurrent preterm labor. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1989;34(3):225‐30.

Lewis 1996 {published data only}

Lewis R, Mercer B, Salama M, Walsh M, Sibai B. Oral terbutaline after parenteral tocolysis: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;174(1 Pt 2):315.
Lewis R, Mercer B, Salama M, Walsh M, Sibai B. Oral terbutaline after parenteral tocolysis: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;175:834‐7.

Matijevic 2006 {published data only}

Matijevic R, Grgic O, Vasilj O. Ritodrine in oral maintenance of tocolysis after active preterm labor: randomized controlled trial. Croatian Medical Journal 2006;47:25‐31.

Parilla 1993 {published data only}

Parilla B, Dooley S, Minogue J, Socol M. The efficacy of oral terbutaline after intravenous tocolysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;169:965‐9.
Parilla B, Dooley S, Socol M. The efficacy of oral terbutaline following parenteral tocolysis for preterm labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;168:376.

Ricci 1991 {published data only}

Ricci J, Hariharan S, Helfgott A, Reed K, O'Sullivan M. Oral tocolysis with magnesium chloride: a randomized controlled prospective clinical trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1991;165:603‐10.

Ridgway 1990 {published data only}

Ridgway L, Muise K, Wright J, Patterson R, Newton E. A prospective randomised comparison of oral terbutaline and magnesium oxide for the maintenance of tocolysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1990;163:879‐82.
Ridgway LE, Muise K, Patterson RM, Wright JW, Newton E, Gibbs RS. A prospective randomized comparison of oral terbutaline and magnesium oxide for the maintenance of tocolysis. Proceedings of 10th Annual Meeting of Society of Perinatal Obstetricians; 1990 January 23‐27; Houston, Texas, USA. 1990:170.

Rust 1996 {published data only}

Rust O, Bofill J, Arriola R, Andrew M, Morrison J. The clinical efficacy of oral tocolytic therapy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;175:838‐42.
Rust OA, Bofil JA, Andrew M, Arriola R, Morrison JC. The clinical efficacy of oral tocolytic therapy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;174:316.

Sakamoto 1985 {published data only}

Sakamoto S. Effectiveness of oral ritodrine hydrochloride on preventing tocolysis: a multicentre double‐blinded trial. Igaku no Ayumi 1985;133(10):734‐51.

Beall 1985 {published data only}

Beall M, Edgar B, Paul R, Smith‐Wallace T. A comparison of ritodrine, terbutaline, and magnesium sulfate for the suppression of preterm labour. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1985;153:854‐9.

Besinger 1991 {published data only}

Besinger R, Niebyl J, Keyes W, Johnson T. Randomized comparative trial of indomethacin and ritodrine for the long‐term treatment of preterm labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1991;164:981‐8.

Cabero 1988 {published data only}

Cabero L, Del‐Solar J, Parra J, Salamero F, Esteban‐Altirriba J. Ritodrine retard. A new approach to treatment of threatening premature labour. 12th World Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics; 1988 Oct 23‐28; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 1988:225.

Caritis 1984 {published data only}

Caritis S, Toig G, Heddinger L, Ashmead G. A double‐blind study comparing ritodrine and terbutaline in the treatment of preterm labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1984;150(7):7‐14.

Forster 1987 {published data only}

Forster F, During R. Comparison of the effectivity of Partusisten® and ethanol tocolysis. Part III: Comparison of long term and short term tocolysis, using Partusisten® or ethanol. Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie 1987;109:1177‐84.

Garite 1987 {published data only}

Garite T, Keegan K, Freeman R, Nageotte M. A randomized trial of ritodrine tocolysis versus expectant management in patients with premature rupture of membranes at 25 to 30 weeks of gestation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1987;157:388‐93.

Hagay 1994 {published data only}

Hagay Z, Epstein M, Goldchmit R, Gotlib Z, Blickstein I, Zalel Y, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing a new oral sustained‐release ritodrine with conventional tablets. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1994;56:83‐7.
Hagay Z, Epstein M, Gotlib Z, Goldchmit C, Blickstein I, Mazkel A, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing a new oral sustained release ritodrine vs conventional ritodrine tablets. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1992;166:366.

Ingemarsson 1976 {published data only}

Ingemarsson I. Effect of terbutaline on premature labor. A double‐blind placebo controlled study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1976;125(4):521‐4.

Larsen 1986 {published data only}

Larsen JF, Eldon K, Lange A, Leegaard M, Osler M, Olsen S, et al. Ritodrine in the treatment of preterm labor: second Danish Multicenter Study. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1986;67(5):607‐13.

Levy 1985 {published data only}

Levy D, Warsof S. Oral ritodrine and preterm premature rupture of membranes. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1985;66:621‐3.

Martin 1988 {published data only}

Martin R, Martin J, Pryor J, Gaddy D, Wiser W, Morrison J. Comparison of oral ritodrine and magnesium gluconate for ambulatory tocolysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1988;158:1440‐5.

Penney 1980 {published data only}

Penney L, Daniell W. Estimation of success in treatment of premature labor: applicability of prolongation index in a double‐blind, controlled, randomized trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1980;138(3):345‐6.

Smit 1983 {published data only}

Smit DA. Efficacy of orally administered ritodrine after initial intravenous therapy [MD thesis]. Limburg: University of Limburg, 1983.

Spellacy 1979 {published data only}

Spellacy W, Cruz A, Birk S, Buhi W. Treatment of premature labor with ritodrine: a randomized controlled study. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1979;54(2):220‐3.

W‐De Casparis 1971 {published data only}

Wesselius‐De Casparis A, Thiery M, Yo Le Sian A, Baumgarten K, Brosens I, Gamisans O, et al. Results of double‐blind, multicentre study with ritodrine in premature labour. BMJ 1971;3:144‐7.

Weisbach 1986 {published data only}

Weisbach W, Wagner F, Jager KH. Oral long term tocolysis in threatening preterm delivery with Clenbuterol (Contraspasmin®, Spiropent®). A randomized clinical trial. Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie 1986;108:419‐23.

Wenstrom 1997 {published data only}

Wenstrom KD, Weiner CP, Merrill D, Niebyl J. A placebo‐controlled randomized trial of the terbutaline pump for prevention of preterm delivery. American Journal of Perinatology 1997;14(2):87‐91.

References to studies awaiting assessment

Kumru 2004 {published data only}

Kumru S, Gurates B, Parmaksiz C. Efficacy of oral ritodrine treatment versus no treatment following suppression of uterine contractions by intravenous ritodrine in cases of preterm labor [Erken dogum tehdidi olgularinda ritodrinin sadece intravenoz verilmesi ile intravenoz tedaviden sonra oral idame uygulamalarinin karsilastirilmasi]. Jinekoloji Ve Obstetrik Dergisi 2004;18(3):158‐61.

Sophonsritsuk 2000 {published data only}

Sophonsritsuk A, Jittacharoen A. The efficacy of oral terbutaline after parenteral tocolysis for prevention of recurrent preterm labour. Thai Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2000;12(4):362.

Alderson 2004

Alderson P, Green S, Higgins JPT, editors. Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2.2 [updated March 2004]. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Anotayanonth 2004

Anotayanonth S, Subhedar NV, Neilson JP, Harigopal S. Betamimetics for inhibiting preterm labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004352.pub2]

Crowther 1998

Crowther CA, Moore V. Magnesium maintenance therapy for preventing preterm birth after threatened preterm labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1998, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000940]

Egger 1997

Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629‐34.

Gaunekar 2004

Gaunekar NN, Crowther CA. Maintenance therapy with calcium channel blockers for preventing preterm birth after threatened preterm labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004071.pub2]

Gyetvai 1999

Gyetvai K, Hannah ME, Hodnett ED, Ohlsson A. Tocolytics for preterm labor: a systematic review. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1999;94:869‐77.

Harbord 2006

Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small‐study effects in meta‐analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 2006;25:3443‐57.

Higgins 2008

Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.

Keirse 1984a

Keirse M J. Betamimetic drugs in the prophylaxis of preterm labour: extent and rationale of their use. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1984;91:431‐7.

Keirse 1984b

Keirse MJ. A survey of tocolytic drug treatment in preterm labour. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1984;91:424‐30.

Keirse 1989

Keirse MJNC, Grant A, King JF. Preterm labour. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse M editor(s). Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989:694‐745.

Keirse 1995a

Keirse MJNC. Betamimetic tocolytics in preterm labour. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database, The Cochrane Collaboration1995, issue 2.

Keirse 1995b

Keirse MJ. New perspectives for the effective treatment of preterm labour. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1995;173:618‐28.

King 1988

King JF, Grant A, Keirse MJNC, Chalmers I. Betamimetics in preterm labour: an overview of the randomized controlled trials. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1988;95:211‐22.

King 2003

King JF, Flenady VJ, Papatsonis DNM, Dekker GA, Carbonne B. Calcium channel blockers for inhibiting preterm labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002255]

King 2005

King JF, Flenady V, Cole S, Thornton S. Cyclo‐oxygenase (COX) inhibitors for treating preterm labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001992.pub2]

Macones 1995

Macones G, Berlin M, Berlin J. Efficacy of oral beta‐agonist maintenance therapy in preterm labour: a meta analysis. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1995;85:313‐7.

Meirowitz 1999

Meirowitz N, Ananth C, Smulian J, Vintzileos A. Value of maintenance therapy with oral tocolytics: a systematic review. Journal of Maternal‐Fetal Medicine 1999;8:177‐83.

Nanda 2002

Nanda K, Cook LA, Gallo MF, Grimes DA. Terbutaline pump maintenance therapy after threatened preterm labor for preventing preterm birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003933]

RevMan 2008 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.

Sanchez‐Ramos 1999

Sanchez‐Ramos L, Kaunitz A, Gaudier F, Delke I. Efficacy of maintenance therapy after acute tocolysis: a meta‐analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999;181:484‐90.

References to other published versions of this review

Dodd 2006

Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Dare MR, Middleton P. Oral betamimetics for maintenance therapy after threatened preterm labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003927.pub2]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Bivins 1993

Methods

RCT. Randomisation by using a list from a random number table.
Blinding: not stated.
Losses to follow‐up: 6/71 (8.4%) women randomised were excluded after randomisation because of no follow‐up (3), multifetal gestation (1), and fetal anomaly (2), and their outcomes were not included in the analysis.

Participants

71 women with successful tocolysis (for at least 12 hours) after treatment with magnesium sulphate who met the following inclusion criteria: 26‐32 weeks' gestation; single, live uterine pregnancy; preterm labour (at least 4 contractions in 20 minutes and progressive cervical change OR single examination with cervix at least 2 cm dilated or at least 80% effaced); amniotic membranes intact.
Exclusion criteria: multifetal gestations, suspected chorioamnionitis, abruptio placentae, placenta praevia, fetal anomaly, premature rupture of membranes, pre‐eclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, oligohydramnios, allergy to aspirin, diabetes.

Interventions

After successful tocolysis with IV magnesium sulphate women were randomised to receive either oral indomethacin 25 mg every 6 hours or terbutaline sulphate 5 mg every 4 hours.
Terbutaline = 30 mg/day.

Outcomes

Birth < 34 weeks, mean birthweight, mean length of stay in NICU, neonatal death, mean Apgar score at 5 min, baby requiring mechanical ventilation, intraventricular haemorrhage, side effects sufficient to cease medication, preterm birth within 48 hours, preterm birth within 1 week.

Notes

2 women in the terbutaline group stopped their medication, but their outcome data were included in the analysis.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Random number table.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not stated.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not stated.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

8.4% losses to follow‐up.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Unable to assess.

Other bias

Low risk

Brown 1981

Methods

RCT. Randomisation was by the chief pharmacist 'randomly assigning' the participants to treatment groups.
Blinding: women and medical attendants were blinded.
Losses to follow‐up: 5 exclusions after randomisation (9.8% excluded); 2 in the terbutaline group and 3 in the placebo group due to uncontrolled labour.

Participants

51 women who met the following inclusion criteria: premature labour between 24 and 36 weeks of gestation, painful regular uterine contractions at intervals of < 5 min.
Exclusion criteria: abnormal fetal heart rate pattern; abruptio placentae; heavy vaginal bleeding from placenta praevia; maternal/fetal complications requiring immediate delivery; diabetes and chronic hypertensive disorders; IUGR; cervical dilatation; bulging or ruptured membranes.

Interventions

All women received ethanol IV for 12 hours and compazine. 2 hours before the ethanol dose ended, women were randomised to receive terbutaline sulphate 5 mg or placebo orally. Treatment was continued every 6 hours until the 38th week of gestation. Terbutaline = 20 mg/day.

Outcomes

Mean birthweight, respiratory distress syndrome, perinatal death, tachycardia, low blood pressure, nausea.

Notes

2 twin pregnancies in the terbutaline group and 3 twin pregnancies in the placebo group.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Pharmacist "Randomly assigning participants to treatment groups".

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Allocation through pharmacy.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Women and medical attendants blinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

9.8% losses to follow‐up.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Unable to assess.

Other bias

Low risk

Creasy 1980

Methods

RCT (method of randomisation unclear). Authors claim double blinding was present throughout the trial.
Losses to follow‐up: 1/70 left the hospital (from placebo group); 10 women gave birth within 24 hours. Of the remaining 59 women, 4 were continued on intramuscular treatment, leaving 55 (78.6%) who were placed on oral treatment.

Participants

55 women who had been successfully treated with IM ritodrine and met the inclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria: gestation 20‐36 weeks, live fetus < 2500 g, intact membranes, 3‐4 contractions per 20 min, progressive cervical effacement or dilatation, informed consent.
Exclusion criteria: abnormal vaginal bleeding, ROM, cervical dilatation > 3‐4 cm, fever of unknown origin, erythroblastosis fetalis, cardiovascular or hypertensive disease, active thyroid disease, diabetes mellitus, known drug addiction.

Interventions

All women received bedrest, monitoring and IM ritodrine. If uterine activity was then controlled, the women were given ritodrine tablets (10 to 20 mg every 3 to 4 hours) or placebo until 37 to 38 weeks' gestation. Ritodrine = 30‐80 mg/day.

Outcomes

Mean birthweight, mean Apgar score at 5 min, preterm birth within 24 hours, preterm birth within 1 week, palpitations and flushing, perinatal death.

Notes

1 twin gestation in the ritodrine group and 4 twin gestations in the placebo group.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not stated.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not stated.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Stated to be "Double blinded".

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

21.4% losses to follow‐up.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Unable to assess.

Other bias

Low risk

Holleboom 1996

Methods

RCT (multicentre).
Randomisation: capsules were distributed in pharmacy coded drug boxes.
Blinding: not stated but control consisted of placebo tablets.
Losses to follow‐up: 1 mother could not be traced after moving.

Participants

95 women who met the following inclusion criteria: participated in a randomised comparison of 2 schedules of intravenous ritodrine administration (described elsewhere) where the arrest of active preterm labour occurred.
Exclusion criteria: treatment with indomethacin, rupture of membranes, severe side‐effects during intravenous treatment, > 34 weeks' gestation.

Interventions

At the start of maintenance treatment, all women had been on an intravenous dose of 50 microg/min ritodrine for 12 to 24 hours following successful arrest of contractions. Maintenance therapy consisted of 2 40 mg ritodrine sustained released capsules or 2 identical placebo capsules 3 times per day for 7 days. Ritodrine = 240 mg/day.

Outcomes

Perinatal death, birth at < 37 weeks, side‐effects sufficient to stop medication, vomiting, preterm birth within 1 week.

Notes

7 twin pregnancies and 1 triplet pregnancy in the ritodrine group; no multiple pregnancies in the placebo group.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Medication was distributed in pharmacy coded drug boxes.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Allocation through pharmacy.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Women blinded to treatment (use of placebo capsule).

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

1% loss to follow‐up.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Unable to assess.

Other bias

Low risk

How 1995

Methods

RCT. Randomisation was by sealed envelopes, generated from a table of random numbers.
Blinding: not stated.
Losses to follow up: 28/212 women (13%) were excluded because of non‐compliance (15 in the terbutaline group and 13 in the bed rest group).

Participants

212 women who met the following inclusion criteria: between 24 and 35 completed weeks of gestation, with at least one of the following: persistent uterine contractions (at least 6 contractions per hour), progressive cervical dilatation and/or effacement, dilatation at least 2 cm and 50% effacement on the initial cervical examination in the presence of uterine contractions.
Exclusion criteria: premature rupture of membranes on initial examination, preterm termination for obstetric indications, inability to reliably assess cervical change.

Interventions

All women were treated with intramuscular betamethasone and intravenous magnesium sulphate until uterine quiescence was achieved for 12‐24 hours, then treated with oral terbutaline for 24‐48 hours. The women were randomised to either terbutaline or bed rest and then divided into 4 groups:
group 1: those with a Bishop score of at least 5 with oral terbutaline; group 2: those with a Bishop score at least 5 without oral terbutaline; group 3: those with a Bishop score < 5 with oral terbutaline;
group 4: those with a Bishop score < 5 without oral terbutaline. For the purpose of this review, the groups 1 and 3 have been combined, and groups 2 and 4 have been combined, so that treatment of terbutaline is compared with no treatment, regardless of the Bishop score. Terbutaline dose = 5‐10 mg every 4‐6 hours (20‐60 mg/day).

Outcomes

Neonatal death, respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular haemorrhage, maternal readmission to hospital.

Notes

166 singleton gestations and 18 multiple gestations (11 twin pregnancies in the terbutaline group and 6 twin and 1 triplet pregnancy in the bed rest group).

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Random number table.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Sealed envelopes.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not stated (although blinding of women randomised to bed rest not possible).

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

13% loss to follow‐up.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Unable to assess.

Other bias

Low risk

Kopelman 1989

Methods

RCT. Randomisation from a random number table via sealed envelopes.
Blinding: not stated.
Losses to follow‐up: 22 women out of 113 (19.4%) were excluded after randomisation; 6 of these were for non‐compliance.

Participants

113 women who met the following inclusion criteria: singleton pregnancy; gestational age 20‐35 weeks; irregular uterine contractions with clear evidence of cervical dilatation and effacement; persistent, regular uterine contractions (min frequency 8/hr) with or without cervical change.
Exclusion criteria: known lethal fetal anomalies, chorioamnionitis, advanced cervical effacement and dilation (completely effaced and > 5 cm dilated).

Interventions

Parenteral tocolysis was given to all women (subcutaneous terbutaline and intravenous ritodrine) then women were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with oral terbutaline (begun at 2.5 mg every 2 hours for 24 hours, then adjusted to 5 mg every 4 hours) or ritodrine (begun at 10 mg every 2 hours for 24 hours then adjusted to 20 mg every 4 hours). Terbutaline = 30 mg/day, ritodrine = 120 mg/ day.

Outcomes

Mean birthweight, perinatal deaths, hyperbilirubinaemia, tachycardia, tachypnoea, nausea/vomiting, antenatal readmission.

Notes

1 woman in each group was switched to the alternate drug because of intolerable side effects. In addition, there were 6 noncompliant women ‐ 4 from the ritodrine group and 2 from the terbutaline group. 2 of the 6 women chose to give birth elsewhere and the remaining 4 elected not to continue their medication because of side effects.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Random number table.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Sealed envelopes.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not stated.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

19% loss to follow‐up.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Unable to assess.

Other bias

Low risk

Lewis 1996

Methods

RCT. Randomisation was by a computer‐generated table of random numbers.
Blinding: women blinded to allocation through use of a placebo.
Losses to follow up: of the 203 women entered in the study, 3 were lost to follow‐up (1.5%).

Participants

203 women who met the following inclusion criteria: admitted to the labour and delivery suite between December 1990 and June 1995 with the diagnosis of preterm labour (regular uterine contractions and documented cervical change). Women had been successfully treated with parenteral tocolysis.
Exclusion criteria: chorioamnionitis; vaginal bleeding suggesting abruptio placentae; medical history contraindicating use of terbutaline; premature rupture of membranes; maternal or fetal indication for delivery.

Interventions

Following successful parenteral tocolysis, women were randomly assigned to terbutaline (5 mg 5 times per day) or placebo. Terbutaline = 25 mg/day.

Outcomes

Perinatal death, respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular haemorrhage, mean birthweight, birth within 48 hours, birth within 1 week.

Notes

3 twin pregnancies in each of the terbutaline and placebo groups.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Computer‐generated random number table.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not stated.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Women were blinded through the use of a placebo.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

1.5% loss to follow‐up.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Unable to assess.

Other bias

Low risk

Matijevic 2006

Methods

Randomisation was by a computer‐generated table of random numbers.

Allocation concealment through sealed opaque envelopes.
Blinding: women blinded to allocation through use of a placebo.
Losses to follow up: none reported.

Participants

120 women who met the following inclusion criteria: singleton pregnancy; gestational age 24‐34 weeks; > 5 contractions per hour for 2 hours; modified bishop score > 3.

Interventions

Following successful parenteral tocolysis, women were randomly assigned to ritodrine (80 mg 3 times per day) or placebo.

Outcomes

Preterm birth < 34 weeks; preterm birth < 37 weeks; preterm birth in 72 hours; infant birthweight; perinatal mortality; NICU admission; Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes; mechanical ventilation; maternal side effects (pulmonary oedema, tremor, tachycardia, shortness of breath).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Computer‐generated random number table.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Sealed opaque envelopes.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not stated.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

No reported losses to follow‐up.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Unable to assess.

Other bias

Low risk

Parilla 1993

Methods

RCT. Randomisation was based on a computer‐generated number table with use of opaque sealed envelopes.
Blinding: not stated.
Losses to follow‐up: not stated, but do not appear to have been any.

Participants

55 women who met the following inclusion criteria: admitted for preterm labour between 28 and 35 weeks' gestation with the following cervical changes: at least 1 cm decrease in length and 1 cm increase in dilation; at least 1 cm increase in dilation if the cervix is already completely effaced; at least 2 cm decrease in length without dilation; or at least 2 cm increase in dilation at the internal os without effacement. Labour was successfully arrested with magnesium sulphate.
Exclusion criteria: ruptured membranes, abnormal bleeding, suspected chorioamnionitis, pre‐eclampsia, severe IUGR, fetal anomalies incompatible with life, non reassuring fetal heart rate pattern and cervical dilatation > 4 cm.

Interventions

Intravenous magnesium sulphate was continued for 12 hours after the uterine contractions ceased. Women were then randomised to receive either no treatment or oral terbutaline (dose unspecified) (the first dose of which was given 30 minutes before the discontinuation of IV magnesium sulphate).

Outcomes

Mean birthweight, preterm birth (< 37 weeks).

Notes

5 twin pregnancies in the terbutaline group and 3 twin pregnancies in the no treatment group.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Computer‐generated random number table.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Sealed opaque envelopes.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not stated.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not stated; do not appear to be any losses to follow‐up.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Unable to assess.

Other bias

Low risk

Ricci 1991

Methods

RCT.
Women were randomised to 1 of 3 groups, using sealed envelopes.
Blinding: examining physician was blinded for some aspects of weekly assessments.
Losses to follow‐up: not stated.

Participants

75 women who met the following inclusion criteria: admitted with a diagnosis of preterm labour (initial pelvic exam of 2 cm dilatation in conjunction with 2 or more contractions per 10 minutes of at least 30 seconds' duration or a change in cervical examination detected by the same examiner over a 1‐hour period of at least 30 seconds' duration).
Exclusion criteria: cervical dilatation equal to or more than 4 cm; ruptured membranes; obstetric haemorrhage; chorioamnionitis; pre‐eclampsia; eclampsia; fetal death; lethal congenital anomaly.

Interventions

All women were given IV magnesium sulphate and randomised to 1 of 3 groups following a 12‐hour contraction‐free period.
Group 1: 10 mg oral ritodrine every 2 hours for 24 hours, then changed to 20 mg every 4 hours; ritodrine = 120 mg/day.
Group 2: 535 mg SLOW MAG (enteric‐coated magnesium chloride) every 4 hours.
Group 3: observation only.

Outcomes

Preterm birth (< 36 weeks), headache, tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, chest pain.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not stated.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Sealed envelopes.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Blinding of some physician visits.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not stated.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Unable to assess.

Other bias

Low risk

Ridgway 1990

Methods

RCT.
Randomisation: method not described.
Blinding: not stated.
Losses to follow up: 10 women (16.7%) ‐ 4 in terbutaline group and 6 in the magnesium group.

Participants

60 women who met the following inclusion criteria: preterm labour successfully arrested with parenteral treatment. Preterm labour is defined as: gestational age between 25 and 35 weeks, 3 contractions in 20 minutes that persisted despite IV hydration, or any cervical change.

Interventions

Once there had been uterine quiescence for 12 to 24 hours, the women were allocated to 2 groups. Group 1: magnesium oxide 200 mg orally every 3‐4 hours. Group 2: 2.5‐5 mg of terbutaline sulphate orally every 3‐4 hours. Terbutaline = 15‐40 mg/ day.

Outcomes

Mean birthweight, birth at < 36 weeks, tachypnoea, nausea, vomiting.

Notes

One set of twins in each group.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not stated.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not stated.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not stated.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

16.7% loss to follow‐up.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Unable to assess.

Other bias

Low risk

Rust 1996

Methods

RCT.
Randomisation: computer‐generated table at the pharmacy. Only the medical professionals responsible for medication distribution had access to group assignment.
Blinding: women and care providers were blinded to treatment group for care and outcomes assessment.
Losses to follow‐up: of the 248 women randomised, 39 (17%) delivered prior to discharge and were thus not included as part of the results, and a further 4 were lost to follow‐up (17.3% in total).

Participants

248 women who met the following inclusion criteria: preterm labour (defined by gestational age 24‐34 weeks, regular contractions of > 4 per hour, documented cervical change on serial digital exams, intact membranes and absence of any medical or obstetric complications requiring delivery); arrest of preterm labour with parenteral tocolysis; uterine quiescence documented by tocodymometry; absence of further cervical change.

Interventions

Following arrest of preterm labour with parenteral tocolysis the women were randomised to 1 of 3 groups: oral magnesium chloride (128 mg every 4 hours) ‐ 65 women, 69 infants; oral terbutaline sulphate (5 mg every 4 h) ‐ 72 women, 82 infants; placebo‐68 women, 71 infants. Terbutaline = 30 mg/ day.

Outcomes

NICU, tachypnoea, nausea, vomiting, mean birthweight.

Notes

Some results reported as being adjusted to account for multiple gestation (but no further details provided).
Compliance: 55% magnesium, 64% terbutaline, 62% placebo.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Computer‐generated random number table.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Medication distributed through pharmacy.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Women and caregivers blinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

17.3% loss to follow‐up.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Unable to assess.

Other bias

Low risk

Sakamoto 1985

Methods

Randomisation: "allocation of drugs carried out at random by the controlled with 2 subjects from each group for a total of 6 subjects per 1 set".
Blinding: women and care providers were blinded to treatment group through the use of placebo.
Losses to follow‐up: 15 women were excluded and lost to follow‐up (7.7% in total).

Participants

291 women who met the following inclusion criteria: preterm labour (defined by gestational age 24‐37 weeks, diagnosis of labour, dilation cervix < 3.5 cm and < 80% effacement); arrest of preterm labour with parenteral tocolysis.

Interventions

Following arrest of preterm labour with parenteral tocolysis the women were randomised to 1 of 3 groups: oral ritodrine (15 mg daily) ‐ 98 women; oral medroxyprogesterone acetate (15 mg daily) ‐ 98 women (not included in this review); placebo ‐ 95 women.

Outcomes

Preterm birth < 37 weeks; infant birthweight < 2500 grams; respiratory distress syndrome; maternal tachycardia, nausea.

Notes

Comparison with medroxyprogesterone acetate not included in this review.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"allocation of drugs carried out at random by the controlled with 2 subjects from each group for a total of 6 subjects per 1 set."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Medication distributed by pharmacy.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Women and caregivers through use of placebo.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

7.7% loss to follow‐up.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Unable to assess.

Other bias

Low risk

h: hour
IM: intramuscular
IUGR: intrauterine growth restriction
IV: intravenous
min: minute
NICU: neonatal intensive care unit
RCT: randomised controlled trial
ROM: rupture of membranes
w: weeks

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Beall 1985

The intervention is the use of IV, not oral, tocolytic therapy.

Besinger 1991

The trial compared IV and oral ritodrine to oral indomethacin.

Cabero 1988

The women in this study were randomised to oral betamimetics for treatment of an initial episode of threatened preterm labour not for maintenance therapy.

Caritis 1984

Study compared 2 betamimetic agents (terbutaline and ritodrine) given intravenously rather than orally.

Forster 1987

The women in this study were randomised to oral betamimetics for treatment of an initial episode of threatened preterm labour not for maintenance therapy.

Garite 1987

Arrest of premature labour was randomised, but use of oral ritodrine as maintenance therapy was not.

Hagay 1994

The trial compares 2 formulations of the same betamimetic tocolytic (ritodrine), rather than comparing a betamimetic with an alternative therapy.

Ingemarsson 1976

The trial compared IV and oral terbutaline to IV and oral placebo.

Larsen 1986

The study assessed the effect of IM ritodrine on the arrest of premature labour, as well as the effect of oral ritodrine as maintenance therapy. The women had thus received "other treatment" in addition to the oral betamimetic.

Levy 1985

The population studied are women with premature rupture of membranes, not preterm labour.

Martin 1988

The women in this study were randomised to the ritodrine and magnesium gluconate groups according to attending staff preference. Thus it is not a RCT.

Penney 1980

Outcomes reported by the study were not those specified in the review protocol.

Smit 1983

The women in this study were randomised to oral betamimetics for treatment of an initial episode of threatened preterm labour not for maintenance therapy.

Spellacy 1979

The study assessed the effect of IV and IM ritodrine as well as the effect of oral ritodrine as maintenance therapy.

W‐De Casparis 1971

The trial compared IV and oral ritodrine to IV and oral placebo.

Weisbach 1986

The women in this study were randomised to oral betamimetics for treatment of an initial episode of threatened preterm labour not for maintenance therapy.

Wenstrom 1997

The women in this study were randomised to oral betamimetics for treatment of an initial episode of threatened preterm labour not for maintenance therapy.

IM: intramuscular
IV: intravenous
RCT: randomised controlled trial

Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]

Kumru 2004

Methods

Stated that women were "randomly divided into two groups".

Participants

Women presenting with preterm labour whose contractions were controlled with parenteral ritodrine.

Interventions

Oral ritodrine versus no treatment.

Outcomes

Prolongation of pregnancy.

Notes

No results presented in abstract; awaiting full translation of manuscript.

Sophonsritsuk 2000

Methods

Stated to be a "randomized controlled trial".

Participants

Women between 28 and 34 weeks' gestation presenting with preterm uterine contractions who have been successfully treated with parenteral terbutaline.

Interventions

Oral terbutaline (2.5 mg 4 times daily) versus no treatment.

Outcomes

Recurrence preterm labour; prolongation of pregnancy; birthweight; preterm birth; 5‐minute Apgar score; congenital anomaly.

Notes

Abstract only; recurrent preterm labour presented as percentage only; no other results presented.

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Very preterm birth (Less than 34 weeks' gestation) Show forest plot

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.81 [0.30, 26.22]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Very preterm birth (Less than 34 weeks' gestation).

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Very preterm birth (Less than 34 weeks' gestation).

1.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.81 [0.30, 26.22]

2 Low birthweight (< 2500 grams) Show forest plot

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.02, 1.25]

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 2 Low birthweight (< 2500 grams).

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 2 Low birthweight (< 2500 grams).

2.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.02, 1.25]

3 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

2

260

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.68, 2.41]

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 3 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 3 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

3.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.29, 5.34]

3.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.29 [0.64, 2.60]

4 Perinatal mortality Show forest plot

6

681

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.41 [0.86, 6.74]

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 4 Perinatal mortality.

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 4 Perinatal mortality.

4.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

3

214

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.85 [0.41, 8.39]

4.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

3

467

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.96 [0.72, 12.14]

5 Maternal death or serious maternal morbidity

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks) Show forest plot

6

644

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.91, 1.35]

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks).

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks).

1.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

4

405

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.75, 1.57]

1.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

2

239

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.89, 1.41]

2 Birthweight Show forest plot

7

780

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.13 [‐91.89, 100.16]

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Birthweight.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Birthweight.

2.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

2

110

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐136.61 [‐395.85, 122.63]

2.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

5

670

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

26.52 [‐76.87, 129.90]

3 Respiratory distress syndrome Show forest plot

6

770

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.61, 1.98]

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Respiratory distress syndrome.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Respiratory distress syndrome.

3.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

3

303

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.46 [0.57, 3.73]

3.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

3

467

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.43, 1.98]

4 Necrotising enterocolitis Show forest plot

2

416

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.22, 4.28]

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 4 Necrotising enterocolitis.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 4 Necrotising enterocolitis.

4.1 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

2

416

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.22, 4.28]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage Show forest plot

3

466

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.27, 3.58]

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage.

5.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.13, 70.30]

5.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

2

416

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.16, 3.24]

6 Neonatal jaundice Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.67 [0.71, 3.89]

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 6 Neonatal jaundice.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 6 Neonatal jaundice.

6.1 Ritodrine versus no treatment

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.67 [0.71, 3.89]

7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.05, 1.06]

Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

7.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.05, 1.06]

8 Need for mechanical ventilation Show forest plot

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.06, 14.61]

Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 8 Need for mechanical ventilation.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 8 Need for mechanical ventilation.

8.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.06, 14.61]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Side effects sufficient to stop therapy Show forest plot

2

141

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.71 [0.11, 64.79]

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Side effects sufficient to stop therapy.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Side effects sufficient to stop therapy.

1.1 Ritodrine versus placebo

1

95

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.71 [0.11, 64.79]

1.2 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Tachycardia Show forest plot

4

414

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.13 [1.52, 2.98]

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 2 Tachycardia.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 2 Tachycardia.

2.1 Ritodrine versus placebo

3

368

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.41 [1.59, 3.66]

2.2 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.5 [0.86, 2.61]

3 Tachypnoea Show forest plot

2

260

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.52 [1.20, 10.33]

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 3 Tachypnoea.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 3 Tachypnoea.

3.1 Ritodrine versus placebo

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.21 [0.95, 18.67]

3.2 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.83 [0.59, 13.56]

4 Hypotension Show forest plot

2

166

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.89 [1.13, 3.19]

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 4 Hypotension.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 4 Hypotension.

4.1 Ritodrine versus placebo

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.81 [0.30, 26.22]

4.2 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.8 [1.08, 3.01]

5 Nausea Show forest plot

2

186

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.43, 2.13]

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 5 Nausea.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 5 Nausea.

5.1 Terbutaline versus placebo

2

186

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.43, 2.13]

6 Vomiting Show forest plot

2

235

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.44, 3.70]

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 6 Vomiting.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 6 Vomiting.

6.1 Ritodrine versus placebo

1

95

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.71 [0.11, 64.79]

6.2 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.36, 3.54]

7 Palpitations Show forest plot

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.67 [1.32, 24.40]

Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 7 Palpitations.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 7 Palpitations.

7.1 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.67 [1.32, 24.40]

8 Headache Show forest plot

1

95

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.71 [0.11, 64.79]

Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 8 Headache.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 8 Headache.

8.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

95

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.71 [0.11, 64.79]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 4. Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Preterm birth within 24 hours Show forest plot

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.12, 3.62]

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Preterm birth within 24 hours.

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Preterm birth within 24 hours.

1.1 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.12, 3.62]

2 Preterm birth within 48 hours Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.30, 2.01]

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 2 Preterm birth within 48 hours.

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 2 Preterm birth within 48 hours.

2.1 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.30, 2.01]

3 Preterm birth within 1 week Show forest plot

2

295

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.40, 1.13]

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 3 Preterm birth within 1 week.

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 3 Preterm birth within 1 week.

3.1 Ritodrine versus placebo

1

95

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.03, 1.94]

3.2 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.44, 1.29]

4 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital Show forest plot

4

335

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.76, 1.62]

Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 4 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 4 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.

4.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.50, 1.46]

4.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

3

285

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [0.77, 2.10]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 5. Terbutaline versus indomethacin (primary outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Very preterm birth (< 34 weeks) Show forest plot

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.24, 1.76]

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Very preterm birth (< 34 weeks).

Comparison 5 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Very preterm birth (< 34 weeks).

2 Neonatal mortality Show forest plot

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (primary outcomes), Outcome 2 Neonatal mortality.

Comparison 5 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (primary outcomes), Outcome 2 Neonatal mortality.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 6. Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Birthweight Show forest plot

1

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

52.0 [‐202.54, 306.54]

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Birthweight.

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Birthweight.

2 Required mechanical ventilation Show forest plot

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.13]

Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Required mechanical ventilation.

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Required mechanical ventilation.

3 Days stay in neonatal intensive care unit Show forest plot

1

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.17 [‐2.93, 0.59]

Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Days stay in neonatal intensive care unit.

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Days stay in neonatal intensive care unit.

4 Intraventricular haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 4 Intraventricular haemorrhage.

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 4 Intraventricular haemorrhage.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 7. Terbutaline versus indomethacin (maternal outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Side effects sufficient to stop therapy Show forest plot

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.09 [0.13, 73.19]

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Side effects sufficient to stop therapy.

Comparison 7 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Side effects sufficient to stop therapy.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 8. Terbutaline versus indomethacin (preterm birth and hospital admissions)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Preterm birth Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Preterm birth.

Comparison 8 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Preterm birth.

1.1 Within 48 hours

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Within 1 week

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.26 [0.03, 2.18]

2 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital Show forest plot

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.34, 1.05]

Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 2 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.

Comparison 8 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 2 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 9. Terbutaline versus ritodrine (primary outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Very preterm birth (less than 34 weeks) Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.01, 6.86]

Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Very preterm birth (less than 34 weeks).

Comparison 9 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Very preterm birth (less than 34 weeks).

Open in table viewer
Comparison 10. Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks) Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.8 [0.44, 1.46]

Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks).

Comparison 10 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks).

2 Mean birthweight Show forest plot

1

91

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

38.30 [‐210.97, 287.57]

Analysis 10.2

Comparison 10 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Mean birthweight.

Comparison 10 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Mean birthweight.

3 Hyperbilirubinaemia (neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy) Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.45 [0.84, 2.51]

Analysis 10.3

Comparison 10 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Hyperbilirubinaemia (neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy).

Comparison 10 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Hyperbilirubinaemia (neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy).

Open in table viewer
Comparison 11. Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Tachycardia Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.22, 1.47]

Analysis 11.1

Comparison 11 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Tachycardia.

Comparison 11 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Tachycardia.

2 Tachypnoea Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.57 [0.55, 12.07]

Analysis 11.2

Comparison 11 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes), Outcome 2 Tachypnoea.

Comparison 11 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes), Outcome 2 Tachypnoea.

3 Nausea/vomiting Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.17, 1.89]

Analysis 11.3

Comparison 11 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes), Outcome 3 Nausea/vomiting.

Comparison 11 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes), Outcome 3 Nausea/vomiting.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 12. Terbutaline versus ritodrine (preterm birth and hospital admissions)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.71 [0.56, 5.29]

Analysis 12.1

Comparison 12 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.

Comparison 12 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 13. Betamimetic versus magnesium (primary outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.43, 1.46]

Analysis 13.1

Comparison 13 Betamimetic versus magnesium (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 13 Betamimetic versus magnesium (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

1.1 Terbutaline versus magnesium

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.43, 1.46]

2 Perinatal mortality Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.01, 3.97]

Analysis 13.2

Comparison 13 Betamimetic versus magnesium (primary outcomes), Outcome 2 Perinatal mortality.

Comparison 13 Betamimetic versus magnesium (primary outcomes), Outcome 2 Perinatal mortality.

2.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.01, 3.97]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 14. Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks) Show forest plot

2

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.58, 1.79]

Analysis 14.1

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks).

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks).

1.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.54, 1.87]

1.2 Terbutaline versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.32, 3.50]

2 Birthweight Show forest plot

3

239

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐28.80 [‐187.41, 129.81]

Analysis 14.2

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Birthweight.

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Birthweight.

2.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐82.0 [‐464.19, 300.19]

2.2 Terbutaline versus magnesium

2

189

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐17.73 [‐192.06, 156.60]

3 Respiratory distress syndrome Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.0 [0.19, 20.67]

Analysis 14.3

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Respiratory distress syndrome.

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Respiratory distress syndrome.

3.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.0 [0.19, 20.67]

4 Intraventricular haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.07, 15.12]

Analysis 14.4

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 4 Intraventricular haemorrhage.

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 4 Intraventricular haemorrhage.

4.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.07, 15.12]

5 Neonatal jaundice Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.47, 1.75]

Analysis 14.5

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 5 Neonatal jaundice.

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 5 Neonatal jaundice.

5.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.47, 1.75]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 15. Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Side effects sufficient to stop medication Show forest plot

2

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.24, 3.46]

Analysis 15.1

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Side effects sufficient to stop medication.

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Side effects sufficient to stop medication.

1.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.05, 5.17]

1.2 Terbutaline versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.23, 7.00]

2 Tachycardia/palpitations Show forest plot

3

237

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.61 [2.41, 13.04]

Analysis 15.2

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 2 Tachycardia/palpitations.

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 2 Tachycardia/palpitations.

2.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

17.0 [1.03, 279.53]

2.2 Terbutaline versus magnesium

2

187

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.54 [1.86, 11.07]

3 Tachypnoea Show forest plot

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.35 [0.40, 4.59]

Analysis 15.3

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 3 Tachypnoea.

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 3 Tachypnoea.

3.1 Terbutaline versus magnesium

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.35 [0.40, 4.59]

4 Nausea Show forest plot

3

237

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.57, 1.98]

Analysis 15.4

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 4 Nausea.

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 4 Nausea.

4.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.05, 5.17]

4.2 Terbutaline versus magnesium

2

187

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.60, 2.19]

5 Vomiting Show forest plot

3

237

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.39, 1.98]

Analysis 15.5

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 5 Vomiting.

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 5 Vomiting.

5.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Terbutaline versus magnesium

2

187

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.39, 1.98]

6 Chest pain Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Analysis 15.6

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 6 Chest pain.

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 6 Chest pain.

6.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 16. Betamimetic versus magnesium (preterm birth and hospital admissions)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.60, 1.99]

Analysis 16.1

Comparison 16 Betamimetic versus magnesium (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.

Comparison 16 Betamimetic versus magnesium (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.

1.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.60, 1.99]

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Very preterm birth (Less than 34 weeks' gestation).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Very preterm birth (Less than 34 weeks' gestation).

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 2 Low birthweight (< 2500 grams).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 2 Low birthweight (< 2500 grams).

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 3 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 3 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 4 Perinatal mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes), Outcome 4 Perinatal mortality.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks).

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Birthweight.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Birthweight.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Respiratory distress syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Respiratory distress syndrome.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 4 Necrotising enterocolitis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 4 Necrotising enterocolitis.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 6 Neonatal jaundice.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 6 Neonatal jaundice.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 8 Need for mechanical ventilation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes), Outcome 8 Need for mechanical ventilation.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Side effects sufficient to stop therapy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Side effects sufficient to stop therapy.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 2 Tachycardia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 2 Tachycardia.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 3 Tachypnoea.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 3 Tachypnoea.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 4 Hypotension.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 4 Hypotension.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 5 Nausea.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 5 Nausea.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 6 Vomiting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 6 Vomiting.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 7 Palpitations.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 7 Palpitations.

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 8 Headache.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes), Outcome 8 Headache.

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Preterm birth within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Preterm birth within 24 hours.

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 2 Preterm birth within 48 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 2 Preterm birth within 48 hours.

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 3 Preterm birth within 1 week.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 3 Preterm birth within 1 week.

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 4 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 4 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.

Comparison 5 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Very preterm birth (< 34 weeks).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Very preterm birth (< 34 weeks).

Comparison 5 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (primary outcomes), Outcome 2 Neonatal mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (primary outcomes), Outcome 2 Neonatal mortality.

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Birthweight.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Birthweight.

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Required mechanical ventilation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Required mechanical ventilation.

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Days stay in neonatal intensive care unit.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Days stay in neonatal intensive care unit.

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 4 Intraventricular haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes), Outcome 4 Intraventricular haemorrhage.

Comparison 7 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Side effects sufficient to stop therapy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Side effects sufficient to stop therapy.

Comparison 8 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Preterm birth.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Preterm birth.

Comparison 8 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 2 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 Terbutaline versus indomethacin (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 2 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.

Comparison 9 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Very preterm birth (less than 34 weeks).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Very preterm birth (less than 34 weeks).

Comparison 10 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks).

Comparison 10 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Mean birthweight.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.2

Comparison 10 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Mean birthweight.

Comparison 10 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Hyperbilirubinaemia (neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.3

Comparison 10 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Hyperbilirubinaemia (neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy).

Comparison 11 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Tachycardia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.1

Comparison 11 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Tachycardia.

Comparison 11 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes), Outcome 2 Tachypnoea.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.2

Comparison 11 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes), Outcome 2 Tachypnoea.

Comparison 11 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes), Outcome 3 Nausea/vomiting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.3

Comparison 11 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes), Outcome 3 Nausea/vomiting.

Comparison 12 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.1

Comparison 12 Terbutaline versus ritodrine (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.

Comparison 13 Betamimetic versus magnesium (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 13.1

Comparison 13 Betamimetic versus magnesium (primary outcomes), Outcome 1 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 13 Betamimetic versus magnesium (primary outcomes), Outcome 2 Perinatal mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 13.2

Comparison 13 Betamimetic versus magnesium (primary outcomes), Outcome 2 Perinatal mortality.

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.1

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks).

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Birthweight.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.2

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 2 Birthweight.

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Respiratory distress syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.3

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 3 Respiratory distress syndrome.

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 4 Intraventricular haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.4

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 4 Intraventricular haemorrhage.

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 5 Neonatal jaundice.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.5

Comparison 14 Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes), Outcome 5 Neonatal jaundice.

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Side effects sufficient to stop medication.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.1

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 1 Side effects sufficient to stop medication.

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 2 Tachycardia/palpitations.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.2

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 2 Tachycardia/palpitations.

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 3 Tachypnoea.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.3

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 3 Tachypnoea.

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 4 Nausea.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.4

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 4 Nausea.

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 5 Vomiting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.5

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 5 Vomiting.

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 6 Chest pain.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.6

Comparison 15 Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes), Outcome 6 Chest pain.

Comparison 16 Betamimetic versus magnesium (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 16.1

Comparison 16 Betamimetic versus magnesium (preterm birth and hospital admissions), Outcome 1 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital.

Comparison 1. Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Very preterm birth (Less than 34 weeks' gestation) Show forest plot

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.81 [0.30, 26.22]

1.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.81 [0.30, 26.22]

2 Low birthweight (< 2500 grams) Show forest plot

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.02, 1.25]

2.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.02, 1.25]

3 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

2

260

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.68, 2.41]

3.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.29, 5.34]

3.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.29 [0.64, 2.60]

4 Perinatal mortality Show forest plot

6

681

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.41 [0.86, 6.74]

4.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

3

214

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.85 [0.41, 8.39]

4.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

3

467

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.96 [0.72, 12.14]

5 Maternal death or serious maternal morbidity

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (primary outcomes)
Comparison 2. Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks) Show forest plot

6

644

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.91, 1.35]

1.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

4

405

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.75, 1.57]

1.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

2

239

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.89, 1.41]

2 Birthweight Show forest plot

7

780

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.13 [‐91.89, 100.16]

2.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

2

110

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐136.61 [‐395.85, 122.63]

2.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

5

670

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

26.52 [‐76.87, 129.90]

3 Respiratory distress syndrome Show forest plot

6

770

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.61, 1.98]

3.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

3

303

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.46 [0.57, 3.73]

3.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

3

467

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.43, 1.98]

4 Necrotising enterocolitis Show forest plot

2

416

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.22, 4.28]

4.1 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

2

416

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.22, 4.28]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage Show forest plot

3

466

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.27, 3.58]

5.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.13, 70.30]

5.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

2

416

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.16, 3.24]

6 Neonatal jaundice Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.67 [0.71, 3.89]

6.1 Ritodrine versus no treatment

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.67 [0.71, 3.89]

7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.05, 1.06]

7.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.05, 1.06]

8 Need for mechanical ventilation Show forest plot

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.06, 14.61]

8.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.06, 14.61]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (infant outcomes)
Comparison 3. Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Side effects sufficient to stop therapy Show forest plot

2

141

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.71 [0.11, 64.79]

1.1 Ritodrine versus placebo

1

95

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.71 [0.11, 64.79]

1.2 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Tachycardia Show forest plot

4

414

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.13 [1.52, 2.98]

2.1 Ritodrine versus placebo

3

368

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.41 [1.59, 3.66]

2.2 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.5 [0.86, 2.61]

3 Tachypnoea Show forest plot

2

260

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.52 [1.20, 10.33]

3.1 Ritodrine versus placebo

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.21 [0.95, 18.67]

3.2 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.83 [0.59, 13.56]

4 Hypotension Show forest plot

2

166

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.89 [1.13, 3.19]

4.1 Ritodrine versus placebo

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.81 [0.30, 26.22]

4.2 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.8 [1.08, 3.01]

5 Nausea Show forest plot

2

186

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.43, 2.13]

5.1 Terbutaline versus placebo

2

186

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.43, 2.13]

6 Vomiting Show forest plot

2

235

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.44, 3.70]

6.1 Ritodrine versus placebo

1

95

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.71 [0.11, 64.79]

6.2 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.36, 3.54]

7 Palpitations Show forest plot

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.67 [1.32, 24.40]

7.1 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.67 [1.32, 24.40]

8 Headache Show forest plot

1

95

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.71 [0.11, 64.79]

8.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

95

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.71 [0.11, 64.79]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (maternal outcomes)
Comparison 4. Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Preterm birth within 24 hours Show forest plot

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.12, 3.62]

1.1 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.12, 3.62]

2 Preterm birth within 48 hours Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.30, 2.01]

2.1 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.30, 2.01]

3 Preterm birth within 1 week Show forest plot

2

295

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.40, 1.13]

3.1 Ritodrine versus placebo

1

95

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.03, 1.94]

3.2 Terbutaline versus placebo

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.44, 1.29]

4 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital Show forest plot

4

335

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.76, 1.62]

4.1 Ritodrine versus placebo/no treatment

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.50, 1.46]

4.2 Terbutaline versus placebo/no treatment

3

285

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [0.77, 2.10]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Betamimetic versus placebo/no treatment (preterm birth and hospital admissions)
Comparison 5. Terbutaline versus indomethacin (primary outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Very preterm birth (< 34 weeks) Show forest plot

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.24, 1.76]

2 Neonatal mortality Show forest plot

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Terbutaline versus indomethacin (primary outcomes)
Comparison 6. Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Birthweight Show forest plot

1

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

52.0 [‐202.54, 306.54]

2 Required mechanical ventilation Show forest plot

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.13]

3 Days stay in neonatal intensive care unit Show forest plot

1

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.17 [‐2.93, 0.59]

4 Intraventricular haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Terbutaline versus indomethacin (infant outcomes)
Comparison 7. Terbutaline versus indomethacin (maternal outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Side effects sufficient to stop therapy Show forest plot

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.09 [0.13, 73.19]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. Terbutaline versus indomethacin (maternal outcomes)
Comparison 8. Terbutaline versus indomethacin (preterm birth and hospital admissions)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Preterm birth Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Within 48 hours

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Within 1 week

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.26 [0.03, 2.18]

2 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital Show forest plot

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.34, 1.05]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 8. Terbutaline versus indomethacin (preterm birth and hospital admissions)
Comparison 9. Terbutaline versus ritodrine (primary outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Very preterm birth (less than 34 weeks) Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.01, 6.86]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 9. Terbutaline versus ritodrine (primary outcomes)
Comparison 10. Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks) Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.8 [0.44, 1.46]

2 Mean birthweight Show forest plot

1

91

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

38.30 [‐210.97, 287.57]

3 Hyperbilirubinaemia (neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy) Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.45 [0.84, 2.51]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 10. Terbutaline versus ritodrine (infant outcomes)
Comparison 11. Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Tachycardia Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.22, 1.47]

2 Tachypnoea Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.57 [0.55, 12.07]

3 Nausea/vomiting Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.17, 1.89]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 11. Terbutaline versus ritodrine (maternal outcomes)
Comparison 12. Terbutaline versus ritodrine (preterm birth and hospital admissions)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital Show forest plot

1

91

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.71 [0.56, 5.29]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 12. Terbutaline versus ritodrine (preterm birth and hospital admissions)
Comparison 13. Betamimetic versus magnesium (primary outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.43, 1.46]

1.1 Terbutaline versus magnesium

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.43, 1.46]

2 Perinatal mortality Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.01, 3.97]

2.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.01, 3.97]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 13. Betamimetic versus magnesium (primary outcomes)
Comparison 14. Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks) Show forest plot

2

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.58, 1.79]

1.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.54, 1.87]

1.2 Terbutaline versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.32, 3.50]

2 Birthweight Show forest plot

3

239

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐28.80 [‐187.41, 129.81]

2.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐82.0 [‐464.19, 300.19]

2.2 Terbutaline versus magnesium

2

189

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐17.73 [‐192.06, 156.60]

3 Respiratory distress syndrome Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.0 [0.19, 20.67]

3.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.0 [0.19, 20.67]

4 Intraventricular haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.07, 15.12]

4.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.07, 15.12]

5 Neonatal jaundice Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.47, 1.75]

5.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.47, 1.75]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 14. Betamimetic versus magnesium (infant outcomes)
Comparison 15. Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Side effects sufficient to stop medication Show forest plot

2

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.24, 3.46]

1.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.05, 5.17]

1.2 Terbutaline versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.23, 7.00]

2 Tachycardia/palpitations Show forest plot

3

237

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.61 [2.41, 13.04]

2.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

17.0 [1.03, 279.53]

2.2 Terbutaline versus magnesium

2

187

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.54 [1.86, 11.07]

3 Tachypnoea Show forest plot

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.35 [0.40, 4.59]

3.1 Terbutaline versus magnesium

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.35 [0.40, 4.59]

4 Nausea Show forest plot

3

237

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.57, 1.98]

4.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.05, 5.17]

4.2 Terbutaline versus magnesium

2

187

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.60, 2.19]

5 Vomiting Show forest plot

3

237

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.39, 1.98]

5.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Terbutaline versus magnesium

2

187

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.39, 1.98]

6 Chest pain Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 15. Betamimetic versus magnesium (maternal outcomes)
Comparison 16. Betamimetic versus magnesium (preterm birth and hospital admissions)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Maternal antenatal readmission to hospital Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.60, 1.99]

1.1 Ritodrine versus magnesium

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.60, 1.99]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 16. Betamimetic versus magnesium (preterm birth and hospital admissions)