<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The New GBS Cochrane Review: A Hot Mess!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=358" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358</link>
	<description>A Research Blog About Healthy Pregnancy, Birth &#38; Beyond</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:51:01 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Group B Strep &#171; Birthing Spirit</title>
		<link>http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358&#038;cpage=1#comment-3519</link>
		<dc:creator>Group B Strep &#171; Birthing Spirit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:59:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358#comment-3519</guid>
		<description>[...] Science and Sensibility on the evidence for treatment of GBS [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Science and Sensibility on the evidence for treatment of GBS [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Science &#38; Sensibility &#187; What’s Behind the Cochrane? (or…, “The Good News About Midwives Gets Better!”)</title>
		<link>http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358&#038;cpage=1#comment-3468</link>
		<dc:creator>Science &#38; Sensibility &#187; What’s Behind the Cochrane? (or…, “The Good News About Midwives Gets Better!”)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:34:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358#comment-3468</guid>
		<description>[...] of approval” on a practice that still needs to be studied further. This is referred to as the “garbage in, garbage out” phenomenon, and we see plenty of it in the obstetric [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of approval” on a practice that still needs to be studied further. This is referred to as the “garbage in, garbage out” phenomenon, and we see plenty of it in the obstetric [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Cracking Grand Rounds! // Emergiblog</title>
		<link>http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358&#038;cpage=1#comment-330</link>
		<dc:creator>A Cracking Grand Rounds! // Emergiblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:41:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358#comment-330</guid>
		<description>[...] at Science and Sensibility takes apart the  The New GBS Cochrane Review: A Hot Mess! There are more holes in this research [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] at Science and Sensibility takes apart the  The New GBS Cochrane Review: A Hot Mess! There are more holes in this research [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rosemary</title>
		<link>http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358&#038;cpage=1#comment-311</link>
		<dc:creator>Rosemary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Aug 2009 03:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358#comment-311</guid>
		<description>the antibiotics will also kill off some of mom&#039;s good bacteria which allows bad bacteria to get more of a foothold.

one of my biggest fears about intrapartum antibiotic use is that all those good bacteria are supposed to be transferred to the baby during passage through the birth canal.  c-section birth, or vaginal with antibiotics reduce the transfer, and then lack of breastfeeding exacerbates the bacterial imbalance even further.  

there&#039;s a lot we don&#039;t know about how your bacterial colonization primes your immune system for _life_ and even if doing the antibiotics reduces GBS infections at birth, we may be trading that for increased rates of allergic conditions later in life, some of which can be life-threatening themselves - anaphylaxis, asthma, etc.

i was GBS+ for my first birth, and received a single dose of antibiotics 3 hours before the birth - he was fast!  with my second i declined to test or treat.  i took a course of probiotics in the last month of pregnancy, attended quickly to yeast infections throughout pregnancy (symptom of vaginal flora out of balance), and went through pregnancy and the entire birth without vaginal exams or other internal procedures.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the antibiotics will also kill off some of mom&#8217;s good bacteria which allows bad bacteria to get more of a foothold.</p>
<p>one of my biggest fears about intrapartum antibiotic use is that all those good bacteria are supposed to be transferred to the baby during passage through the birth canal.  c-section birth, or vaginal with antibiotics reduce the transfer, and then lack of breastfeeding exacerbates the bacterial imbalance even further.  </p>
<p>there&#8217;s a lot we don&#8217;t know about how your bacterial colonization primes your immune system for _life_ and even if doing the antibiotics reduces GBS infections at birth, we may be trading that for increased rates of allergic conditions later in life, some of which can be life-threatening themselves &#8211; anaphylaxis, asthma, etc.</p>
<p>i was GBS+ for my first birth, and received a single dose of antibiotics 3 hours before the birth &#8211; he was fast!  with my second i declined to test or treat.  i took a course of probiotics in the last month of pregnancy, attended quickly to yeast infections throughout pregnancy (symptom of vaginal flora out of balance), and went through pregnancy and the entire birth without vaginal exams or other internal procedures.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy Romano</title>
		<link>http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358&#038;cpage=1#comment-308</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy Romano</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358#comment-308</guid>
		<description>Antibiotics can cause thrush because they knock out bacteria, including the beneficial bacteria that keep yeast growth at bay. My understanding is that thrush can lead to mastitis, probably because trauma to the nipple (cracks, bleeding, etc.) offer a route for bacteria to get inside. I imagine that a woman who had antibiotics, especially if she had multiple doses (used in longer labors) or a broad-spectrum alternative to penicillin (used in women who are allergic to penicillin) might end up with mastitis cases that are harder to treat. I know that some providers recommend probiotics to women and/or babies exposed to antibiotics for GBS prevention. Probiotic supplements replenish the beneficial bacteria, and evidence is building for their use in NICUs with babies on prolonged courses of antibiotics. To my knowledge, probiotics have not been studied as a means of preventing antibiotic-related thrush.  

Any breastfeeding professionals out there have other thoughts?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Antibiotics can cause thrush because they knock out bacteria, including the beneficial bacteria that keep yeast growth at bay. My understanding is that thrush can lead to mastitis, probably because trauma to the nipple (cracks, bleeding, etc.) offer a route for bacteria to get inside. I imagine that a woman who had antibiotics, especially if she had multiple doses (used in longer labors) or a broad-spectrum alternative to penicillin (used in women who are allergic to penicillin) might end up with mastitis cases that are harder to treat. I know that some providers recommend probiotics to women and/or babies exposed to antibiotics for GBS prevention. Probiotic supplements replenish the beneficial bacteria, and evidence is building for their use in NICUs with babies on prolonged courses of antibiotics. To my knowledge, probiotics have not been studied as a means of preventing antibiotic-related thrush.  </p>
<p>Any breastfeeding professionals out there have other thoughts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jennifer</title>
		<link>http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358&#038;cpage=1#comment-305</link>
		<dc:creator>jennifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:52:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358#comment-305</guid>
		<description>No wonder care providers have had such a hard time basing practice on evidence -- there isn&#039;t any to speak of. I am curious about one thing: antibiotic use can cause thrush? Could it also contribute to prolonged mastitis? And why is that? A friend had interpartum antibiotics for GBS+, and she has fought mastitis for the entire 12 weeks of her son&#039;s life; I just wondered if there might be a link. Of course, the medical answer for mastitis is antibiotics, which she has avoided after the first dose. Any thoughts?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No wonder care providers have had such a hard time basing practice on evidence &#8212; there isn&#8217;t any to speak of. I am curious about one thing: antibiotic use can cause thrush? Could it also contribute to prolonged mastitis? And why is that? A friend had interpartum antibiotics for GBS+, and she has fought mastitis for the entire 12 weeks of her son&#8217;s life; I just wondered if there might be a link. Of course, the medical answer for mastitis is antibiotics, which she has avoided after the first dose. Any thoughts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy Romano</title>
		<link>http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358&#038;cpage=1#comment-304</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy Romano</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:02:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358#comment-304</guid>
		<description>This is probably one of the biggest reasons I started this blog! We get so excited for evidence, but sometimes the evidence is junk. So I want to help people sort out the good from the bad from the ugly. Cochrane reviews can go either way. Sometimes they really are the pinnacle of evidence, and often they just package together a bunch of bad trials and crown them with the &quot;stamp of approval&quot; of the Cochrane Collaboration. A pet peeve of mine!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is probably one of the biggest reasons I started this blog! We get so excited for evidence, but sometimes the evidence is junk. So I want to help people sort out the good from the bad from the ugly. Cochrane reviews can go either way. Sometimes they really are the pinnacle of evidence, and often they just package together a bunch of bad trials and crown them with the &#8220;stamp of approval&#8221; of the Cochrane Collaboration. A pet peeve of mine!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jill--Unnecesarean</title>
		<link>http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358&#038;cpage=1#comment-303</link>
		<dc:creator>Jill--Unnecesarean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:08:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=358#comment-303</guid>
		<description>I am never skeptical of anything in the Cochrane database. I&#039;m glad you posted this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am never skeptical of anything in the Cochrane database. I&#8217;m glad you posted this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
