Conectar
The incidence of cancer diagnosed during pregnancy is increasing, but data relating to perinatal outcomes for infants exposed to systemic cancer treatment in utero remain limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise evidence from the available literature to investigate whether perinatal outcomes for babies born to women with gestational cancer differ based on whether they are exposed to systemic cancer treatment in utero.
A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA-P guidelines. We extracted raw data from the eligible studies to calculate ORs and 95% CIs for perinatal outcomes reported in the included studies.
A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL databases identified studies published between January 2001 and May 2025.
Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review that reported on both a study group (women with gestational cancer who received systemic therapy during pregnancy) and a comparison group (women with gestational cancer who did not receive systemic therapy during pregnancy).
Two independent reviewers extracted data. Perinatal outcomes included spontaneous abortion, pregnancy termination, intrauterine growth restrictions (IUGR), stillbirth, intrauterine foetal death, neonatal mortality, preterm birth (
Five cohort studies (a total of 416 women and 427 neonates exposed to systemic therapy in utero) met the inclusion criteria. Across these studies, a higher rate of preterm birth was consistently observed among exposed neonates compared with those unexposed, with reported ORs ranging from 1.85 to 24.00. Although effect sizes varied and CIs were wide, the overall trend suggests a potential association between in utero exposure to systemic therapy and increased risk of preterm birth. No significant differences were observed in the rates of spontaneous abortion, congenital anomalies, stillbirth, IUGR or SGA births between exposed and non-exposed babies.
Very few studies have compared outcomes of systemic therapy-exposed and non-exposed babies of women with gestational cancer. These studies are of limited quality. The available evidence suggests that while some studies indicate a possible association between systemic cancer therapy and increased risk of preterm birth, the overall findings should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample sizes, lack of adjusted analyses, and clinical heterogeneity among included studies. Further research is required to better understand the impact of systemic therapy exposure in utero on perinatal outcomes.
To understand the extent and type of evidence that exists related to nurses' and midwives' experiences of participating in clinical supervision and ascertain how clinical supervision is defined in the literature.
A scoping review of peer reviewed research.
CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier) and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant articles published between 2010 and 2024.
The scoping review followed the JBI methodology.
PRISMA-ScR.
Forty-three articles were included, qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods studies and three reviews were found describing nurses' and midwives' experiences of clinical supervision. The studies identified were carried out across 15 countries and reported on experiences of group clinical supervision, one to one clinical supervision or both, more recent studies included a focus on group clinical supervision. All definitions found are reported, and although these varied, there were frequently used terms common in many.
Although some evidence exists on how nurses and midwives experience clinical supervision gaps in evidence and detail of supervision practices remain. Inconsistencies of approach to this practice remain and specific detail relating to clinical supervision explored in existing research is frequently lacking. The lack of a universally accepted definition highlighted may influence inconsistences in clinical supervision, key terms identified in this review may assist in the development of a definition. Further research into this support is required to establish its value in practice.
This scoping review progresses the ongoing debate that clinical supervision is a valuable support for nurses' and midwives' but the absence of evidence is an indication that clinical supervision is not fully understood nor is visible in practice. To this end, this review highlights that the lack of consensus on a clinical supervision definition causes ambiguity thus reducing the use of this support for nurses and midwives.
There was no patient or public contribution to this paper as it is a review paper that seeks information on research available on a professional support.
Protocol registration@ Open science Framework: identifier 10.17605/OSF.IO/QNKUR
FreshRSS 