-
Public Health Sep 2022To systematically appraise the existing published literature on cervical cancer screening utilization, and associated barriers and facilitators, in Nepal. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically appraise the existing published literature on cervical cancer screening utilization, and associated barriers and facilitators, in Nepal.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, and, Google Scholar were systematically searched using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline. All quantitative and qualitative studies reporting cervical cancer screening (using the Pap smear test or visual inspection with acetic acid or human papillomavirus test) utilization, barriers, and facilitators for screening were identified. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate Nepal's pooled cervical cancer screening utilization proportion.
RESULTS
The search yielded 97 records, of which 17 studies were included. Fifteen studies were quantitative and two were qualitative. Of the 17 studies, six were hospital-based and six were community-based. The pooled cervical cancer screening utilization proportion (using Pap smear test) among Nepalese women was 17% from the studies in the hospital settings, and 16% in the community. Six studies reported barriers to cervical cancer screening, of which four reported embarrassments related to the gynecological examination and a low level of knowledge on cervical cancer. Three (of four) studies reported health personnel, and two studies reported screening services-related facilitators for cervical cancer screening.
CONCLUSION
Our review reported that cervical cancer screening utilization (16%) is more than four times lower than the national target (70%) in Nepal. Multiple barriers such as low levels of knowledge and embarrassment are associated with cervical cancer screening utilization. Health personnel's gender, counseling, and privacy of screening services were commonly reported facilitators. These findings could help to inform future research, and policy efforts to increase cervical cancer screening utilization in Nepal.
Topics: Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mass Screening; Nepal; Papanicolaou Test; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaginal Smears
PubMed: 35863158
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2022.06.007 -
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 -
Iranian Journal of Public Health Mar 2024The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse is varied in different countries. For validating the results of numerous studies on the prevalence of Pelvic organ prolapse in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse is varied in different countries. For validating the results of numerous studies on the prevalence of Pelvic organ prolapse in the world, a meta-analysis study seems necessary to provide an accurate and valid prevalence for planners and researchers in this field. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the worldwide prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse using the meta-analysis method.
METHODS
By using valid keywords, searching was done in ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Medline databases, and 22 articles were selected based on inclusion criteria between 2009 and 2021. The quality of articles was checked using The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Meta-analysis was performed on collected data using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software (CMA, Version 2). Meta-analysis of data was done with a random-effects model. The heterogeneity of the study was checked using the I2 index. Publication bias was assessed by the Egger test and funnel graph.
RESULTS
The overall prevalence of included studies was 30.9% (95% confidence interval: 24.4-38.2%), (<0.001, heterogeneity I2=99.8%). Meta-analysis of subgroups in studies that used a questionnaire to estimate the prevalence rate showed the prevalence was 25.0% and, in the studies, used the physical examination was 41.8%.
CONCLUSION
Studies carried out in different parts of the world have examined the prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse using different tools. Since some cases are asymptomatic, especially in the low stage of prolapse, physical examination of pelvic organ prolapse should be considered an essential tool in evaluating pelvic organ prolapse.
PubMed: 38919293
DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v53i3.15134 -
International Urogynecology Journal Jul 2021Pregnancy and childbirth are considered risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The long latency between obstetric events and morbidity hinders the establishment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Pregnancy and childbirth are considered risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The long latency between obstetric events and morbidity hinders the establishment of cause-effect relationships. Recently, intermediate outcomes such as organ descent and levator avulsion (LA) have been identified. We aimed to assess the effect of obstetric events on symptoms and signs of POP and on LA.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed the literature by searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library. We included studies in women examining associations between obstetric events and symptoms and signs of POP and LA, assessed through questionnaires, clinical examination and pelvic floor imaging. Two reviewers evaluated the studies for eligibility and for methodological quality/susceptibility to bias. We extracted study results and clustered them by outcome: symptoms of POP (sPOP), clinical findings of POP (cPOP) and LA. When appropriate, we performed a random-effect meta-analysis and reported the summary odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using the I statistic.
RESULTS
The first vaginal delivery was a risk factor for POP as measured by sPOP (OR: 2.65 [1.81-3.88]), cPOP (OR: 4.85 [2.15-10.94]) and in association with LA (OR: 41.6 [4.13- 419.41]). Forceps delivery was a risk factor for POP as measured by sPOP (OR: 2.51 [1.34-4.69]), cPOP (OR: 1.68 [1.21-2.34]) and in association with LA (OR: 5.92 [3.75-9.34]). Birth exclusively by caesarean was protective for sPOP (OR: 0.38 [0.29-0.51]) and for cPOP (OR: 0.29 [0.20-0.41]) and it did not confer any additional risk compared to nulliparity.
CONCLUSIONS
This review confirms a strong aetiological link between vaginal birth and POP, with the first vaginal and forceps delivery being the main determinants.
Topics: Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Nuclear Proteins; Parity; Pelvic Floor; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Pregnancy; Repressor Proteins; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33704536
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04724-y -
Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey Feb 2017Abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) is a rare but easily treated cause of pain in women, especially those who have undergone cesarean deliveries. (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) is a rare but easily treated cause of pain in women, especially those who have undergone cesarean deliveries.
OBJECTIVE
This article reviews the diagnosis and management of AWE, a condition that generally develops after surgery but may arise spontaneously. We present a systematic review of the existing literature on AWE, as well as our clinical recommendations for medical and surgical management.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We searched PubMed and other databases using the search criteria "abdominal wall endometriosis," "abdominal wall endometriomas," and "abdominal wall mass." The references of those articles were then reviewed, and additional publications were evaluated.
RESULTS
Many case reports and case series have been published describing AWE. The overall quality of evidence is poor due to the lack of prospective studies and heterogeneous descriptions of AWE lesions and treatment options. Based on the available literature, it appears that AWE may arise spontaneously but is generally associated with prior pelvic surgery. Abdominal wall endometriosis can be diagnosed with a careful history and physical examination. Imaging including ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging can assist with localization of the lesions, and aid in surgical excision and management. Lesions that have been removed in their entirety are unlikely to reoccur.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Although limited, the body of literature describing management of AWE suggests that it can be successfully treated in most patients with careful surgical planning.
Topics: Abdominal Wall; Disease Management; Dissection; Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Medical History Taking; Physical Examination
PubMed: 28218772
DOI: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000399 -
American Journal of Law & Medicine Dec 2022Laws regulating patient care are an essential component of protecting patients and doctors alike. No studies have previously examined what laws exist regarding pelvic...
Laws regulating patient care are an essential component of protecting patients and doctors alike. No studies have previously examined what laws exist regarding pelvic examinations in the United States (US). This study systematically reviews and compares regulation and legislation of pelvic examinations in the U.S. and provides a comprehensive resource to educate clinicians, patients, and lawmakers. Each of the fifty States in the U.S. was included. The primary outcome was existence of any pelvic or rectal exam laws. Data was obtained for the type of examination defined within the law, exceptions to the law, to whom the law applied to, the type of consent required, and to whom the consent applied to. Laws were identified from each of the individual state legislative websites. All sections of each law pertaining to pelvic examination were reviewed and organized by state. Descriptive statistics were performed for each of the variables, including frequencies of each amongst the fifty states. State regulation for pelvic examinations varied from no law or regulation to laws pertaining to pelvic, rectal, prostate, and breast examination performed in any context. As of November 22, 2022, there are twenty states (40%) with pelvic examination laws applying to anesthetized or unconscious patients. Thirteen additional states (26%) have proposed pelvic exam laws. Seventeen states (34%) do not have any laws regarding pelvic examinations. Regulation of pelvic examinations has become an increasingly important issue over the past few years in response to growing concerns of patient autonomy and the ethical issues raised by such sensitive examinations. While pelvic examination laws that balance protection for patient autonomy and the needs of caregivers and educators exist in much of the U.S., more work needs to continue in consultation with physicians and health care providers to ensure that all states have reasonable laws protecting the autonomy of patients while also maintaining quality of care.
Topics: Humans; Gynecological Examination; United States; Gynecology
PubMed: 37039755
DOI: 10.1017/amj.2023.4 -
Archives of Public Health = Archives... Nov 2021Puerperal sepsis is a genital tract infection that can occur from amniotic fluid rupture to six weeks after birth. Maternal complication associated with puerperal sepsis... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Puerperal sepsis is a genital tract infection that can occur from amniotic fluid rupture to six weeks after birth. Maternal complication associated with puerperal sepsis includes prolonged hospital stay, septicemia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and death. Even though, puerperal sepsis is the fourth leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality in Ethiopia the overall prevalence of puerperal sepsis and its associated factors are not studied at the national stage. As a result, this systematic review and meta-analysis bring out the pooled prevalence of puerperal sepsis and its associated factors in Ethiopia.
METHODS
A variety of data sources such as Pub Med, Web of Science, Science Direct, Embase, Google Scholar, HINARI, and Ethiopian universities online repositories were searched to identify the primary studies which were used for this systematic review and meta-analysis. The article search was conducted from February10/2021-March 10/2021. The quality of the selected primary studies was assessed using the Newcastle - Ottawa quality assessment Scale (NOS). Data extraction was done with Microsoft Excel and then exported to STATA 11 version statistical software for analysis. The Cochran (Q-test) and I2 test statistics were used to assess the heterogeneity of the studies. Publication bias was evaluated by the eggers regression test. Subgroup analysis was performed with region and sample size category.
RESULT
In this review, a total of 2222 respondents were involved from seven studies. The pooled prevalence of puerperal sepsis was 14.811% (95%CI; 8.46: 21.16; I = 94.2, P ≤ 0.001). Cesarean section delivery (CSD) (OR = 3.26, 95%CI: 1.90, 5.61), membrane rupture≥24 h (OR = 4.04, 95%CI: 2.54, 6.42), being multiparous mother (OR = 3.99, 95%CI: 1.82, 8.78), vaginal examination≥5 times (OR = 3.15, 95%CI: 1.17, 8.52), and anemia (OR = 5.68, 95%CI: 4.38, 7.36) were factors significantly associated with puerperal sepsis.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of puerperal sepsis was high in Ethiopia. CSD, membrane rupture≥24 h, being multiparous mother, vaginal examination≥5, and anemia were factors associated with puerperal sepsis. Appropriate standard infection prevention techniques during CSD shall be practiced to reduce the maternal burden of puerperal sepsis. The unnecessary vaginal examination should be discouraged during the intrapartum period. Besides this, routine Iron sulfate supplementation and counsel on iron reach foods during ante partum and postpartum shall be considered for all mothers.
PubMed: 34844656
DOI: 10.1186/s13690-021-00732-y -
American Journal of Preventive Medicine Mar 2016Ovarian cancer is common and has significant morbidity and mortality, partly because it is often diagnosed at a late stage. This study sought to determine the accuracy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Ovarian cancer is common and has significant morbidity and mortality, partly because it is often diagnosed at a late stage. This study sought to determine the accuracy of individual symptoms and combinations of symptoms for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
MEDLINE was searched, identifying 2,492 abstracts, reviewing 71 articles in full, and ultimately identifying 17 studies published between 2001 and 2014 that met the inclusion criteria. Data were abstracted by two researchers, and quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 criteria adapted to the study question. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used where possible, and heterogeneity and threshold effects were explored using receiver operating characteristic curves. Data were analyzed in 2015.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Most studies were at high risk of bias, primarily because of case-control design or differential verification bias. The highest positive likelihood ratios (LRs+) were found for presence of abdominal mass (LR+, 30.0); abdominal distension or increased girth (LR+, 16.0); abdominal or pelvic pain (LR+, 10.4); abdominal or pelvic bloating (LR+, 9.3); loss of appetite (LR+, 9.2); and a family history of ovarian cancer (LR+, 7.5). No symptoms were helpful at ruling out ovarian cancer when absent. The Ovarian Cancer Symptom Index was validated in five studies and (after excluding one outlier with different inclusion criteria) was 63% sensitive and 95% specific (LR+, 12.6; LR-, 0.39). Two other symptom scores had not been validated prospectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Several individual signs and symptoms significantly increase the likelihood of ovarian cancer when present. More work is needed to validate decision rules and develop new decision support tools integrating risk factors, symptoms, and possibly biomarkers to identify women at increased ovarian cancer risk.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Physical Examination; Risk Factors; Symptom Assessment; United States
PubMed: 26541098
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.09.023 -
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2016The objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of cesarean scar defects and its clinical manifestations in reproductive-aged women. We performed a systematic... (Review)
Review
The objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of cesarean scar defects and its clinical manifestations in reproductive-aged women. We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement using keywords of "cesarean scar defect, uterine scar defect, uterine diverticulum niche, isthmocele, pouch, or sacculation" and their combination. Thirty-two trials met the inclusion criteria. Cesarean scar defects are commonly found on ultrasound examination (24%-88%). Their presence could be asymptomatic or related to postmenstrual spotting, postmenstrual bleeding, or infertility. The prevalence of this condition is related to the number of cesarean deliveries. Hysteroscopic repair of a cesarean scar defect or isthmoplasty is associated with an improvement in uterine bleeding in 59% to 100% of cases and a pregnancy rate of 77.8% to 100%. An improvement in uterine bleeding after vaginal repair occurred in 89% to 93.5% of cases. Laparoscopic repair led to uterine bleeding improvement in 86% of cases and a pregnancy rate of 86%. The association between cesarean scar defect and infertility, pelvic pain, and dysmenorrhea require more studies. Treatment of uterine scar defects should be performed after eliminating other causes of postmenstrual bleeding or infertility. Hysteroscopic isthmoplasty appears to be the most popular treatment. However, in the absence of randomized trials, the efficacy of different surgical approaches remains to be seen. Until we have concrete evidence, the treatment should be reserved for selective cases.
Topics: Adult; Cesarean Section; Cicatrix; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Laparoscopy; Metrorrhagia; Pelvic Pain; Postoperative Complications; Pregnancy; Prevalence; Ultrasonography; Uterine Diseases; Uterine Hemorrhage; Wound Healing
PubMed: 27393285
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.06.020