RHL Contents - A Wealth of Information

In 1998 the first issue of The WHO Reproductive Health Library (RHL) contained 27 systematic reviews and 22 peer-reviewed commentaries with practical recommendations for the management of reproductive health problems at primary and secondary levels of care in developing countries. The topics covered in the material on that first diskette included, for example:

• trichomoniasis treatment in women and men;
• treatment of gonorrhoea and chlamydia infection during pregnancy;
• antimalarial prophylaxis during pregnancy in malaria endemic regions;
• nutritional supplementation during pregnancy;
• hypertensive disorders during pregnancy;
• postpartum haemorrhage.

The first issue also included a directory of agencies that fund research into reproductive health in developing countries, as well as a list of nongovernmental organizations working in the area of reproductive health. These lists have been updated along with the other information and now form a regular part of the material in the new issues of RHL.

Most of the topics in issue No. 1 of the WHO Reproductive Health Library were related to pregnancy and childbirth. By the time issue No. 2 appeared in 1999, the number of Cochrane reviews on other reproductive health topics had started to increase so a larger number of these were incorporated. In priority areas where Cochrane reviews had not yet been prepared, information was extracted from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) which is also included in The Cochrane Library. DARE contains abstracts of good-quality systematic reviews from around the world, all of which have been critically appraised by reviewers at the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York, United Kingdom.

The RHL database has continued to grow: RHL No. 1 was launched with 27 Cochrane reviews, RHL NO. 2 had 40, and the latest issue, RHL No. 3, contains a total of 51 reviews.

The second issue of the library contained 13 new reviews, bringing the total to 40. In addition a considerable number of the reviews from issue No. 1, as well as the commentaries and advice, were updated. Some of the new reviews included in issue No. 2 of the WHO Reproductive Health Library were:

• routine antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy;
• HIV infection in pregnancy;
• misoprostol vaginally for labour induction;
• episiotomy policies in vaginal births;
• prevention of meconium aspiration syndrome;
• cervical smear collection devices.

RHL's editorial team had also prepared a growing number of overviews of the systematic reviews, and these overviews were published in peer-reviewed journals. Consequently, issue 2 included abstracts of these overviews. It also contained a new section entitled "Reproductive health in developing countries" which included articles on evidence-based health care.

In the the third issue, a further 12 new systematic reviews have been added. The earlier reviews and other materials are included, many of them updated to reflect the latest information. One earlier review has been removed because it has not been updated despite new evidence, bringing the total number of reviews to 51. The new topics include:

• interventions for emergency contraception;
• use of antibiotics in incomplete abortion;
• use of antibiotics before caesarean section;
• treatments for very high blood pressure during pregnancy;
• calcium supplementation during pregnancy;
• vitamin A supplementation for infants with very low birth weight.

The unequivocal success of RHL has led the Department to consider a further expansion of the contents the library to include multimedia presentations and new sections with information targeted specifically at consumers.

Summary of effectiveness of interventions The WHO Reproductive Health Library contains summaries of the effectiveness of interventions according to six categories, namely: beneficial forms of care forms of care likely to be beneficial forms of care with a trade-off forms of care with unknown effectiveness forms of care likely to be ineffective forms of care likely to be harmful.

Go to Progress