-
Fertility and Sterility Dec 2022To review the use of oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and synthesize their efficacy and safety parameters for the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To review the use of oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and synthesize their efficacy and safety parameters for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
SETTING
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S)
Premenopausal women with endometriosis who had experienced moderate or severe pain.
INTERVENTION(S)
The Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and MEDLINE were searched until April 10, 2022. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was used to perform indirect comparisons. I was used to assess the global heterogeneity. Relative treatment estimates were performed. Treatment ranking was performed through the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Endometriosis-associated pain, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, and noncyclic pelvic pain reduction.
RESULT
(s): Five studies and 6 randomized controlled trials, including a total of 2,796 women and 10 different doses of oral GnRH antagonist treatments, were eligible for inclusion. All studies were considered to have a low risk of bias. Almost all efficacy- and safety-related outcomes showed a dose-response relationship. Regarding endometriosis-associated pain, the top 3 treatments were elagolix 400 mg, linzagolix 75 mg, and linzagolix 200 mg, with mean differences of -1.26 (95% credible interval [CrI], -1.70 to -0.79), -0.98 (95% CrI, -1.84 to -0.15), and -0.98 (95% CrI, -1.90 to -0.064), respectively. The top 3 treatments to decrease dysmenorrhea were relugolix 40 mg, elagolix 400 mg, and relugolix 20 mg, with mean differences of -1.60 (95% CrI, -2.07 to -1.14), -1.25 (95% CrI, -1.56 to -0.95), and -1.10 (95% CrI, -1.59 to -0.62), respectively. However, only high-dose treatments were significantly associated with most quality of life- and adverse effect-related outcomes. Relugolix 40 and 20 mg and elagolix 400 mg, with odds ratios of 6.88 (95% CrI, 2.18-24.58), 1.60 (95% CrI, 0.62-4.13), and 1.85 (95% CrI, 1.05-3.30), had a significantly increased incidence of adverse events.
CONCLUSION
(s): Oral GnRH antagonists are effective for endometriosis-associated pain and dysmenorrhea and the patient global impression. The incidence of ovarian hypoestrogenic effects in a short-term duration was significant in a dose-effect response, particularly the highest dose.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number CRD42022332904.
Topics: Female; Humans; Bayes Theorem; Dysmenorrhea; Endometriosis; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Hormone Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pelvic Pain; Quality of Life
PubMed: 36283862
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.08.856 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Dysmenorrhoea (painful menstrual cramps) is common and a major cause of pain in women. Combined oral contraceptives (OCPs) are often used in the management of primary... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dysmenorrhoea (painful menstrual cramps) is common and a major cause of pain in women. Combined oral contraceptives (OCPs) are often used in the management of primary dysmenorrhoea, but there is a need for reporting the benefits and harms. Primary dysmenorrhoea is defined as painful menstrual cramps without pelvic pathology.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of combined oral contraceptive pills for the management of primary dysmenorrhoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date 28 March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing all combined OCPs with other combined OCPs, placebo, or management with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Participants had to have primary dysmenorrhoea, diagnosed by ruling out pelvic pathology through pelvic examination or ultrasound.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain score after treatment, improvement in pain, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 RCTs (3723 women). Eleven RCTs compared combined OCP with placebo, eight compared different dosages of combined OCP, one compared two OCP regimens with placebo, and one compared OCP with NSAIDs. OCP versus placebo or no treatment OCPs reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than placebo. Six studies reported treatment effects on different scales; the result can be interpreted as a moderate reduction in pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.74 to -0.41; I² = 28%; 6 RCTs, 588 women; high-quality evidence). Six studies also reported pain improvement as a dichotomous outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.10; I² = 69%; 6 RCTs, 717 women; low-quality evidence). The data suggest that in women with a 28% chance of improvement in pain with placebo or no treatment, the improvement in women using combined OCP will be between 37% and 60%. Compared to placebo or no treatment, OCPs probably increase the risk of any adverse events (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.43; I² = 79%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; moderate-quality evidence), and may also increase the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 6.43; I² = 22%; 4 RCTs, 512 women; low-quality evidence). Women who received OCPs had an increased risk of irregular bleeding compared to women who received placebo or no treatment (RR 2.63, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.28; I² = 29%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; high-quality evidence). In women with a risk of irregular bleeding of 18% if using placebo or no treatment, the risk would be between 39% and 60% if using combined OCP. OCPs probably increase the risk of headaches (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.04; I² = 44%; 5 RCTs, 656 women; moderate-quality evidence), and nausea (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.30; I² = 39%; 8 RCTs, 948 women; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of OCP on weight gain (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.45; 1 RCT, 76 women; low-quality evidence). OCPs may slightly reduce requirements for additional medication (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 163 women; low-quality evidence), and absence from work (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 148 women; low-quality evidence). One OCP versus another OCP Continuous use of OCPs (no pause or inactive tablets after the usual 21 days of hormone pills) may reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than the standard regimen (SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.34; 2 RCTs, 106 women; low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a difference in pain improvement between ethinylestradiol 20 μg and ethinylestradiol 30 μg OCPs (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.74; 1 RCT, 326 women; moderate-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between third- and fourth-generation and first- and second-generation OCPs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 178 women; moderate-quality evidence). The standard regimen of OCPs may slightly increase the risk of any adverse events over the continuous regimen (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.22; I² = 76%; 3 RCTs, 602 women; low-quality evidence), and probably increases the risk of irregular bleeding (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.69; 2 RCTs, 379 women; moderate-quality evidence). Due to lack of studies, it is uncertain if there is a difference between continuous and standard regimen OCPs in serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.24; 1 RCT, 212 women), headaches (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.76; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 435 women), or nausea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.30; I² = 23%; 2 RCTs, 435 women) (all very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if one type of OCP reduces absence from work more than the other (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.99; 1 RCT, 445 women; very low-quality evidence). OCPs versus NSAIDs There were insufficient data to determine whether OCPs were more effective than NSAIDs for pain (mean difference -0.30, 95% CI -5.43 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 91 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report on adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
OCPs are effective for treating dysmenorrhoea, but they cause irregular bleeding, and probably headache and nausea. Long-term effects were not covered in this review. Continuous use of OCPs was probably more effective than the standard regimen but safety should be ensured with long-term data. Due to lack of data, we are uncertain whether NSAIDs are better than OCPs for treating dysmenorrhoea.
Topics: Female; Humans; Dysmenorrhea; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Muscle Cramp; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Headache
PubMed: 37523477
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002120.pub4 -
Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2020Primary dysmenorrhea is defined as painful menstrual cramps of uterine origin in the absence of pelvic pathology and is the most common gynecological disorder among... (Review)
Review
Primary dysmenorrhea is defined as painful menstrual cramps of uterine origin in the absence of pelvic pathology and is the most common gynecological disorder among women of reproductive age. The aim of this study was to systematically review case-control studies that have investigated the oxidative stress, antioxidant status, and inflammation markers among women with primary dysmenorrhea and controls. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020183104). By searching PubMed and Scopus databases as well as reference lists, six case-control studies with fifteen eligible markers (seven oxidative stress, seven antioxidant status, one inflammation) were included in this review. The quality of the included studies was assessed as medium or high. The systematic review included 175 women with primary dysmenorrhea and 161 controls. The results indicate an elevated level of oxidative stress, especially of lipid peroxidation among dysmenorrheal women. For the antioxidant status, limited evidence was found for a lower status among primary dysmenorrhea women, and only one study examined one inflammation marker (hs-CRP), which makes it impossible for such a conclusion. To establish whether oxidative stress, antioxidant status or inflammation participate in the pathophysiology of primary dysmenorrhea, high-quality studies with larger study groups and clear case definitions are needed.
PubMed: 33076228
DOI: 10.3390/antiox9100994 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Sep 2020The objective of the study was to synthesize the epidemiological findings for the associations between dysmenorrhea, including primary dysmenorrhea and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the study was to synthesize the epidemiological findings for the associations between dysmenorrhea, including primary dysmenorrhea and endometriosis-associated dysmenorrhea and any chronic pain conditions, including chronic pelvic pain, and chronic nonpelvic pain.
DATA SOURCES
The data sources included PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL from inception to December 2019.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
The study criteria included observational population-based studies in which the relationship between dysmenorrhea and the presence or severity of chronic pain was examined.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Each study was double coded and evaluated for bias based on the modified Newcastle and Ottawa Scale. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to quantify the associations between dysmenorrhea and the presence of chronic pelvic and nonpelvic pain.
RESULTS
Out of 9452 records, 32 studies were included, with 14 reporting associations between dysmenorrhea and chronic pelvic pain, and 20 for dysmenorrhea and chronic nonpelvic pain. Primary dysmenorrhea and endometriosis-associated dysmenorrhea were examined in 7 studies, respectively. More than 30% of the studies were categorized as poor quality, 56% as moderate, and 12.5% as high. Dysmenorrhea was positively associated with both the presence and severity of chronic pelvic and nonpelvic pain conditions. Based on 6689 women from 8 studies, those with chronic pelvic pain had 2.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.98-2.99, I, 42%) times the odds of having dysmenorrhea compared with those without. Based on 3750 women from 11 studies, those with chronic nonpelvic pain had 2.62 (95% confidence interval, 1.84-3.72, I, 72%) times the odds of having dysmenorrhea compared with those without. Overall, dysmenorrhea was associated with 2.50 (95% confidence interval, 2.02-3.10) times the odds of chronic pain, which did not differ by chronic pelvic vs chronic nonpelvic pain, community vs clinical populations, or different geographical regions.
CONCLUSIONS
Dysmenorrhea may be a general risk factor for chronic pain, although whether primary dysmenorrhea increases the risk for chronic pain is unclear. Given that adolescence is a sensitive period for neurodevelopment, elucidating the role of primary dysmenorrhea in pain chronicity in future longitudinal studies is important for preventing both chronic pelvic and nonpelvic pain.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Chronic Pain; Dysmenorrhea; Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Pelvic Pain; PubMed; Young Adult
PubMed: 32151612
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.03.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Dysmenorrhoea (period pain) is a common condition with a substantial impact on the well-being and productivity of women. Primary dysmenorrhoea is defined as recurrent,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dysmenorrhoea (period pain) is a common condition with a substantial impact on the well-being and productivity of women. Primary dysmenorrhoea is defined as recurrent, cramping pelvic pain that occurs with periods, in the presence of a normal uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes. It is thought to be caused by uterine contractions (cramps) associated with a high level of production of local chemicals such as prostaglandins. The muscle of the uterus (the myometrium) responds to these high levels of prostaglandins by contracting forcefully, causing low oxygen levels and consequently pain. Nifedipine is a calcium channel blocker in widespread clinical use for preterm labour due to its ability to inhibit uterine contractions in that setting. This review addresses whether this effect of nifedipine also helps with relief of the uterine contractions during menstruation OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of nifedipine for primary dysmenorrhoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of nifedipine for dysmenorrhoea, without language restriction and in consultation with the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Information Specialist. The following databases were searched to 25 November 2021: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Also searched were the international trial registers: ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, the Web of Science, OpenGrey, LILACS database, PubMed and Google Scholar. We checked the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing nifedipine with placebo for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcomes to be assessed were pain, and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, satisfaction, and need for additional medication. The two review authors independently assessed the included trials. There were insufficient data to allow meaningful meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
The evidence assessed was of very low quality overall. We examined three small RCTs, with a total of 106 participants. Data for analysis could be extracted from only two of these trials (with a total of 66 participants); two trials were published in the 1980s, and the third in 1993. Nifedipine may be effective for "any pain relief" compared to placebo in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 9.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.61 to 31.31; 2 studies, 66 participants; very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of pain relief using placebo is 40%, the rate using nifedipine would be between 64% and 95%. For the outcome of "good" or "excellent" pain relief, nifedipine may be more effective than placebo; the confidence interval was very wide (OR 43.78, 95% CI 5.34 to 259.01; 2 studies, 66 participants; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if the use of nifedipine was associated with less requirement for additional analgesia use than placebo (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.20, 1 study, 42 participants; very low-quality evidence). Participants indicated that they would choose to use nifedipine over their previous analgesic if the option was available. There were similar levels of adverse effects and menstruation-related symptoms in the placebo and intervention groups (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.08 to 10.90; 1 study, 24 participants; very low-quality evidence); if the chance of adverse effects with placebo is 80%, the rate using nifedipine would be between 24% and 98%. There were no results regarding formal assessment of health-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is insufficient to confirm whether nifedipine is a possible medical treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. The trials included in this review had very low numbers and were of low quality. Notably, there was a large imbalance in numbers randomised between placebo and treatment groups in one of the two trials with data available for analysis. While there was no evidence of a difference noted in adverse effects between groups, more data from larger participant numbers are needed for this outcome. Larger, more well-conducted trials are required to elucidate the potential role of nifedipine in the treatment of this common condition, as it could be a useful addition to the therapeutic options available if shown to be well tolerated and effective. The safety of nifedipine in women of reproductive age is well established from trials of its use in preterm labour, and clinicians are accustomed to off-label use for this indication. The drug is inexpensive and readily available. Other options for relief of primary dysmenorrhoea are not suitable for all women; NSAIDs and the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) are contraindicated for some women, and the OCP is not suitable for women who are trying to conceive. In addition, the trials examined suggest there may be a participant preference for nifedipine.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Menstruation; Nifedipine; Pelvic Pain; Pregnancy
PubMed: 34921554
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012912.pub2 -
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Mar 2021To conduct a systematic review of the literature on the hysteroscopic and laparoscopic repair of isthmocele.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of the literature on the hysteroscopic and laparoscopic repair of isthmocele.
DATA SOURCES
A thorough search of the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed. (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020190668).
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Studies from the last 20 years that addressed isthmocele repair were collected. Both authors screened for study eligibility and extracted data. All prospective and retrospective studies of more than 10 women were included.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
The initial search identified 666 articles (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart) (see Supplemental Fig.). We excluded duplicates, case reports, reviews, video articles, and technique articles. We also excluded studies describing only laparotomy or vaginal repair as these were not in the scope of this review. A total of 31 articles met the inclusion criteria, 21 for hysteroscopic resection and 13 for laparoscopic or combined repair (4 articles tested both modalities and appear in both Tables 1 and 2).For abnormal uterine bleeding, hysteroscopic remodeling relived symptoms in 60% to 100% of cases and laparoscopy in 78% to 94%. Secondary infertility was not evaluated in all studies. After hysteroscopic and laparoscopic treatment, 46% to 100% and 37.5% to 90% of those who wished to conceive became pregnant, after the procedure, respectively. Pain and dysmenorrhea seem to be uncommon. All studies that tested improvement of pain had fewer than 10 women. However, between 66% and 100% of women who complain of pain or dysmenorrhea will note a marked improvement to full resolution.
CONCLUSION
Patients with an isthmocele or cesarean scar defect are usually asymptomatic. For symptomatic women, a repair is a valid option. For those with residual myometrial thickness >2 to 3 mm, hysteroscopic remodeling is the modality of choice with an improvement in abnormal uterine bleeding, secondary infertility, and pain. Women with a residual myometrial thickness <2- to 3-mm laparoscopic repair with simultaneous hysteroscopic guidance show similar results. Because available data are limited, no cutoff for the correct choice between hysteroscopy and laparoscopy can be concluded. We recommend 2.5 mm as the cutoff value based on common practice and expert opinion, although no significance between hysteroscopic and laparoscopic treatment was shown.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Cicatrix; Cohort Studies; Disease Management; Female; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Laparoscopy; Pregnancy; Uterine Diseases
PubMed: 33152531
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.10.026 -
Women's Health (London, England) 2022Dysmenorrhea is one of the most common gynecological complaints among adolescent women. It has been associated with short-term absenteeism in school and has a negative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dysmenorrhea is one of the most common gynecological complaints among adolescent women. It has been associated with short-term absenteeism in school and has a negative impact on academic and daily activities. Therefore, the aim of the study was to show the evidence on the magnitude and correlates of dysmenorrhea in Ethiopia.
METHOD
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the literature from different databases such as PubMed/Medline, Science Direct, PsycINFO, and Cochrane library. We also used unpublished literature from Google, Google Scholar. The quality of the included articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were extracted using a Microsoft Excel data extraction format. STATA version 14 statistical software was used for data analysis. To assess the heterogeneity of the primary articles, the Cochrane Q test statistics and the I test were carried out. Publication bias was inspected by funnel plot, and Egger's test was performed to confirm the presence of publication bias. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of dysmenorrhea and its associated factors.
RESULT
A total of 12 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence estimate of dysmenorrhea among female students in Ethiopia is 71.69% (66.82%-76.56%). In our systematic review, among factors associated with dysmenorrhea, the family history of dysmenorrhea was frequently reported in included studies. Therefore, dysmenorrhea was significantly associated with a family history of dysmenorrhea (adjusted odds ratio = 4.69 (95% confidence interval: 2.80-7.85)).
CONCLUSION
The pooled prevalence estimate of dysmenorrhea among students was much higher in Ethiopia. Health professionals and teachers should educate and support students to follow their menstrual cycle regularly in the event of irregular periods. There should be an awareness of the negative consequences of dysmenorrhea to reduce the physical and psychological stresses that affect women and their families.
Topics: Adolescent; Dysmenorrhea; Ethiopia; Female; Humans; Odds Ratio; Prevalence; Students
PubMed: 35168425
DOI: 10.1177/17455057221079443 -
Explore (New York, N.Y.) 2017To assess the robustness of evidence for the efficacy of manipulative therapy in women with primary dysmenorrhea. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the robustness of evidence for the efficacy of manipulative therapy in women with primary dysmenorrhea.
METHOD
Seven electronic databases were searched for studies reporting data on manipulative therapy for women with primary dysmenorrhea. The primary and secondary outcomes were pain relief and quality of life, respectively. Quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) guideline.
RESULTS
The search yielded 19 citations of which four were systematically reviewed and three eligible for meta-analysis. The systematic review showed above moderate methodological quality with a mean of 6.7 out of 10 on the PEDro quality scale. Manipulative therapy showed evidence of pain reduction in primary dysmenorrhea.
CONCLUSION
Manipulative therapy could be considered as adjunct therapy in the relief of pain in primary dysmenorrhea. More high-quality research is needed before the evidence for their utilization can be ascertained. Particularly, items related to assessor blinding should be considered in future studies.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Pain Management; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 28988817
DOI: 10.1016/j.explore.2017.08.001 -
Complementary Therapies in Medicine Jun 2016The aim of the review was to evaluate the effects of the osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) on women with gynaecological and obstetric disorders. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the review was to evaluate the effects of the osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) on women with gynaecological and obstetric disorders.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An extensive search from inception to April 2014 was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane library using MeSH and free terms. Clinical studies investigating the effect of OMT in gynaecologic and obstetric conditions were included as well as unpublished works. Reviews and personal contributions were excluded. Studies were screened for population, outcome, results and adverse effects by two independent reviewers using an ad-hoc data extraction form. The high heterogeneity of the studies led to a narrative review.
RESULTS
24 studies were included (total sample=1840), addressing back pain and low back functioning in pregnancy, pain and drug use during labor and delivery, infertility and subfertility, dysmenorrhea, symptoms of (peri)menopause and pelvic pain. Overall, OMT can be considered effective on pregnancy related back pain but uncertain in all other gynaecological and obstetrical conditions. Only three studies (12.5%) mentioned adverse events after OMT.
CONCLUSIONS
Although positive effects were found, the heterogeneity of study designs, the low number of studies and the high risk of bias of included trials prevented any indication on the effect of osteopathic care. Further investigation with more pragmatic methodology, better and detailed description of interventions and systematic reporting of adverse events are recommended in order to obtain solid and generalizable results.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Menopause; Pelvic Pain; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 27261985
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2016.03.005 -
Seminars in Reproductive Medicine May 2020To summarize and update our current knowledge regarding adenomyosis diagnosis, prevalence, and symptoms. Systematic review of PubMed between January 1972 and April 2020....
To summarize and update our current knowledge regarding adenomyosis diagnosis, prevalence, and symptoms. Systematic review of PubMed between January 1972 and April 2020. Search strategy included: "adenomyosis [MeSH Terms] AND (endometriosis[MeSH Term OR prevalence study [MeSH Terms] OR dysmenorrhea[Text Word] OR prevalence[Text Word] OR young adults [Text Word] OR adolesce* [Text Word] OR symptoms[Text Word] OR imaging diagnosis [Text Word] OR pathology[Text Word]. Articles published in English that addressed adenomyosis and discussed prevalence, diagnosis, and symptoms were included. Included articles described: pathology diagnosis, imaging, biopsy diagnosis, prevalence and age of onset, symptoms, and concomitant endometriosis. Sixteen articles were included in the qualitative analysis. The studies are heterogeneous when diagnosing adenomyosis with differing criteria, protocols, and patient populations. Prevalence estimates range from 20% to 88.8% in symptomatic women (average 30-35%) with most diagnosed between 32-38 years old. The correlation between imaging and pathology continues to evolve. As imaging advances, newer studies report younger symptomatic women are being diagnosed with adenomyosis based on both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and/or transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS). High rates of concomitant endometriosis create challenges when discerning the etiology of pelvic pain. Symptoms that are historically attributed to endometriosis may actually be caused by adenomyosis. Adenomyosis remains a challenge to identify, assess and research because of the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria, especially in women who wish to retain their uterus. As noninvasive diagnostics such as imaging and myometrial biopsies continue to improve, younger women with variable symptoms will likely create criteria for diagnosis with adenomyosis. The priority should be to create standardized histopathological and imaging diagnoses to gain deeper understandings of adenomyosis.
Topics: Adenomyosis; Adolescent; Adult; Diagnosis, Differential; Disease Progression; Dysmenorrhea; Dyspareunia; Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Menorrhagia; Myometrium; Ultrasonography; Young Adult
PubMed: 33352607
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721795