-
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Nov 2015Manual removal of the placenta is an invasive obstetric procedure commonly used for the management of retained placenta. However, it is unclear whether antibiotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Manual removal of the placenta is an invasive obstetric procedure commonly used for the management of retained placenta. However, it is unclear whether antibiotic prophylaxis is beneficial in preventing infectious morbidity. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of routine use of antibiotics for preventing adverse maternal outcomes related to manual placenta removal following vaginal birth.
METHODS
A detailed search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and the CINAHL databases was conducted for non-randomized studies involving women undergoing manual placenta delivery after vaginal births and where antibiotic prophylaxis use was compared with no treatment or placebo to prevent maternal infection. Search terms including 'delivery, obstetric', 'placenta, retained', 'anti-infective agents', and 'chemoprevention' were used.
RESULTS
Of the 407 citations that resulted after elimination of duplicates, 81 full texts were potentially eligible after independent assessment of the title and abstracts. Independent review of the full texts identified three eligible cohort studies which were retrospective in design. These studies contained data on two of the pre-specified outcomes, endometritis and puerperal fever. Other secondary outcomes such as perineal infection and/or any infection, hospital stay duration, sepsis, hemorrhage >1000 ml or hospital readmissions were not reported on excluding puerperal fever. A meta-analysis showed no significant reduction in the incidence of endometritis (odds ratio [OR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38 to 1.85, three studies, 567 women) and puerperal fever (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.27, one study, 302 women).
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no evidence to suggest beneficial effects for routine antibiotic use in women undergoing manual placental removal following vaginal birth. In appropriate settings, further research is required to determine whether a policy of routine antibiotic prophylaxis for the procedure should be maintained or discouraged.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Delivery, Obstetric; Endometritis; Female; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Placenta, Retained; Pregnancy; Puerperal Infection; Retrospective Studies; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 26610697
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-015-0752-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Infectious morbidities contribute to considerable maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, including women at no apparent increased risk of infection. To reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Infectious morbidities contribute to considerable maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, including women at no apparent increased risk of infection. To reduce the incidence of infections, antibiotics are often administered to women after uncomplicated childbirth, particularly in settings where women are at higher risk of puerperal infectious morbidities.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether routine administration of prophylactic antibiotics to women after normal (uncomplicated) vaginal birth, compared with placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis, reduces postpartum maternal infectious morbidities and improves outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2017), LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (22 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the use of prophylactic antibiotics versus placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis. Trials using a cluster-randomised design would have been eligible for inclusion, but we found none.In future updates of this review, we will include studies published in abstract form only, provided sufficient information is available to assess risks of bias. We will consider excluded abstracts for inclusion once the full publication is available, or the authors provide more information.Trials using a cross-over design are not eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors conducted independent assessment of trials for inclusion and risks of bias. They independently extracted data and checked them for accuracy, resolving differences in assessments by discussion. They evaluated methodological quality using standard Cochrane criteria and the GRADE approach.We present the summaries as risk ratios (RRs) and mean difference (MDs) using fixed- or random-effect models. For one primary outcome we found considerable heterogeneity and interaction. We explored further using subgroup analysis to investigate the effects of the randomisation unit. All review authors discussed and interpreted the results.
MAIN RESULTS
One randomised controlled trial (RCT) and two quasi-RCTs contributed data on 1779 women who had uncomplicated vaginal births, comparing different antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment. The included trials took place in the 1960s (one trial) and 1990s (two trials). The trials were conducted in France, the USA and Brazil. Antibiotics administered included: oral sulphamethoxypyridazine or chloramphenicol for three to five days, and intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid in a single dose one hour after birth. We rated most of the domains for risk of bias as high risk, with the exception of reporting bias and other potential bias.The quality of evidence ranged from low to very low, based on the GRADE quality assessment, given very serious design limitations of the included studies, few events and wide confidence intervals (CIs) of effect estimates.We found a decrease in the risk of endometritis (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.83, two trials, 1364 women,very low quality). However, one trial reported zero events for this outcome and we rate the evidence as very low quality. There was little or no difference between groups for the risk of urinary tract infection (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.19, two trials, 1706 women,low quality), wound infection after episiotomy (reported as wound dehiscence in the included trials) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.96, two trials, 1364 women, very low quality) and length of maternal hospital stay in days (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.01, one trial, 1291 women, very low quality). Cost of care in US dollar equivalent was 2½ times higher in the control group compared to the group receiving antibiotics prophylaxis (USD 3600: USD 9000, one trial, 1291 women). There were few or no differences between treated and control groups for adverse effects of antibiotics (skin rash) reported in one woman in each of the two trials (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.95, two trials, 1706 women, very low quality). The incidence of severe maternal infectious morbidity, antimicrobial resistance or women's satisfaction with care were not addressed by any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Routine administration of antibiotics may reduce the risk of endometritis after uncomplicated vaginal birth. The small number and nature of the trials limit the interpretation of the evidence for application in practice, particularly in settings where women may be at higher risk of developing endometritis. The use of antibiotics did not reduce the incidence of urinary tract infections, wound infection or the length of maternal hospital stay. Antibiotics are not a substitute for infection prevention and control measures around the time of childbirth and the postpartum period. The decision to routinely administer prophylactic antibiotics after normal vaginal births needs to be balanced by patient features, childbirth setting and provider experience, including considerations of the contribution of indiscriminate use of antibiotics to raising antimicrobial resistance. Well-designed and high-powered randomised controlled trials would help to evaluate the added value of routine antibiotic administration as a measure to prevent maternal infections after normal vaginal delivery.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Chloramphenicol; Clavulanic Acid; Delivery, Obstetric; Endometritis; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pregnancy; Puerperal Infection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfamethoxypyridazine; Surgical Wound Infection; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 29190037
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012137.pub2 -
Journal of Ethnopharmacology Jan 2021Herba Patriniae has been used for thousands of years in China as a traditional Chinese medicine with heat-clearing and detoxicating effects. It is applied widly for the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
Herba Patriniae has been used for thousands of years in China as a traditional Chinese medicine with heat-clearing and detoxicating effects. It is applied widly for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, diarrhea, acute hepatitis, pelvic inflammatory disease and ulcerative colitis in clinic. Two species, namely Patrinia scabiosaefolia Fisch. (PS) and Patrinia villosa Juss. (PV) from the Caprifoliaceae family, are considered as Herba Patriniae in the pharmaceutical industry.
AIM OF THE REVIEW
This paper aims to comprehensively outline the traditional uses, botanical description, phytochemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, quality control, pharmacokinetics and patents of Herba Patriniae, and elaborate the same/different characteristics between PS and PV.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Detailed information of Herba Patriniae was collected from various online databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Google Schola, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, National Intellectual Property Administration, PRC National Medical Products Administration), and those published resources (M.Sc. Thesis and books).
RESULTS
A total of 233 compounds have been identified in Herba Patriniae, including triterpenoid saponins, flavonoids, organic acids, iridoids, and volatiles. A very distinct difference was observed, that PS is rich in triterpenoid saponins and volatiles, while PV contains more flavonoids. Two source species of Herba Patriniae gave similar pharmacological effects on anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antimicrobial, sedative and hypnotic effects. But there were no reports were on antipruritic, proangiogenic and anti-diarrheal effects for PS, and no studies on anti-diabetic effects for PV. Generally, Herba Patriniae showed non-toxic in the clinical dose, but mild side effects, such as temporary leukopenia, dizziness and nausea, could be found when large and excessive dosage is used. A variety of compounds have been quantified for the quality control of PS and PV. The variety, growth environment, growth time, and harvest time not only affected the contents but also the pharmacological activities of the bioactive compounds. In the past year, patents for compositions containing PV and PS have been filed, mainly involving human health, hygiene, agriculture, and animal husbandry. Unfortunately, the research on pharmacokinetics is insufficient. Only the prototype components and metabolites were repored after intragastric administration of total flavonoids extract from PV in rats.
CONCLUSION
Herba Patriniae has displayed a significant medicinal value in clinic, but the differences in phytochemistry, pharmacological effects and the content of compounds have been found between two official recorded species. About side effects and pharmacokinetic characteristics, the differences between two species have not been well studied. For a better clinical use of Herba Patriniae, it is urgent to establish systematic pharmacology, quality control, pharmacokinetics, and clinical researches on the same/different characteristics between PS and PV.
Topics: Animals; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Ethnopharmacology; Humans; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Patrinia; Phytotherapy; Quality Control
PubMed: 32846192
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2020.113264 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002, and previously updated in 2007. Late radiation rectal problems (proctopathy) include bleeding, pain,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002, and previously updated in 2007. Late radiation rectal problems (proctopathy) include bleeding, pain, faecal urgency, and incontinence and may develop after pelvic radiotherapy treatment for cancer.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of non-surgical interventions for managing late radiation proctopathy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2015); MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE (Ovid); CANCERCD; Science Citation Index; and CINAHL from inception to November 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing non-surgical interventions for the management of late radiation proctopathy in people with cancer who have undergone pelvic radiotherapy for cancer. Primary outcomes considered were: episodes of bowel activity, bleeding, pain, tenesmus, urgency, and sphincter dysfunction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction were performed in duplicate, and any disagreements were resolved by involving a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 1221 unique references and 16 studies including 993 participants that met our inclusion criteria. One study found through the last update was moved to the 'Studies awaiting classification' section. We did not pool outcomes for a meta-analysis due to variation in study characteristics and endpoints across included studies.Since radiation proctopathy is a condition with various symptoms or combinations of symptoms, the studies were heterogeneous in their intended effect. Some studies investigated treatments targeted at bleeding only (group 1), some investigated treatments targeted at a combination of anorectal symptoms, but not a single treatment (group 2). The third group focused on the treatment of the collection of symptoms referred to as pelvic radiation disease. In order to enable some comparison of this heterogeneous collection of studies, we describe the effects in these three groups separately.Nine studies assessed treatments for rectal bleeding and were unclear or at high risk of bias. The only treatments that made a significant difference on primary outcomes were argon plasma coagulation (APC) followed by oral sucralfate versus APC with placebo (endoscopic score 6 to 9 in favour of APC with placebo, risk ratio (RR) 2.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 4.55; 1 study, 122 participants, low- to moderate-quality evidence); formalin dab treatment (4%) versus sucralfate steroid retention enema (symptom score after treatment graded by the Radiation Proctopathy System Assessments Scale (RPSAS) and sigmoidoscopic score in favour of formalin (P = 0.001, effect not quantified, 1 study, 102 participants, very low- to low-quality evidence), and colonic irrigation plus ciprofloxacin and metronidazole versus formalin application (4%) (bleeding (P = 0.007, effect not quantified), urgency (P = 0.0004, effect not quantified), and diarrhoea (P = 0.007, effect not quantified) in favour of colonic irrigation (1 study, 50 participants, low-quality evidence).Three studies, of unclear and high risk of bias, assessed treatments targeted at something very localised but not a single pathology. We identified no significant differences on our primary outcomes. We graded all studies as very low-quality evidence due to unclear risk of bias and very serious imprecision.Four studies, of unclear and high risk of bias, assessed treatments targeted at more than one symptom yet confined to the anorectal region. Studies that demonstrated an effect on symptoms included: gastroenterologist-led algorithm-based treatment versus usual care (detailed self help booklet) (significant difference in favour of gastroenterologist-led algorithm-based treatment on change in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire-Bowel (IBDQ-B) score at six months, mean difference (MD) 5.47, 95% CI 1.14 to 9.81) and nurse-led algorithm-based treatment versus usual care (significant difference in favour of the nurse-led algorithm-based treatment on change in IBDQ-B score at six months, MD 4.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.19) (1 study, 218 participants, low-quality evidence); hyperbaric oxygen therapy (at 2.0 atmospheres absolute) versus placebo (improvement of Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytic - Late Effects of Normal Tissue (SOMA-LENT) score in favour of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), P = 0.0019) (1 study, 150 participants, moderate-quality evidence, retinol palmitate versus placebo (improvement in RPSAS in favour of retinol palmitate, P = 0.01) (1 study, 19 participants, low-quality evidence) and integrated Chinese traditional plus Western medicine versus Western medicine (grade 0 to 1 radio-proctopathy after treatment in favour of integrated Chinese traditional medicine, RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.02) (1 study, 58 participants, low-quality evidence).The level of evidence for the majority of outcomes was downgraded using GRADE to low or very low, mainly due to imprecision and study limitations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although some interventions for late radiation proctopathy look promising (including rectal sucralfate, metronidazole added to an anti-inflammatory regimen, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy), single small studies provide limited evidence. Furthermore, outcomes important to people with cancer, including quality of life (QoL) and long-term effects, were not well recorded. The episodic and variable nature of late radiation proctopathy requires large multi-centre placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) to establish whether treatments are effective. Future studies should address the possibility of associated injury to other gastro-intestinal, urinary, or sexual organs, known as pelvic radiation disease. The interventions, as well as the outcome parameters, should be broader and include those important to people with cancer, such as QoL evaluations.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Electrocoagulation; Fatty Acids; Formaldehyde; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Pelvic Neoplasms; Proctitis; Radiation Injuries; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectum; Sucralfate
PubMed: 27111831
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003455.pub2 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Feb 2021Pregnant women with a body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m are at an increased risk of requiring planned- and unplanned cesarean deliveries (CD). The aim of this systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Pregnant women with a body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m are at an increased risk of requiring planned- and unplanned cesarean deliveries (CD). The aim of this systematic review is to compare outcomes in women with BMI ≥ 40 kg/m based on planned and actual mode of birth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Five databases were searched for English and French-language publications until February 2019, and all studies reporting on delivery outcomes in women with BMI ≥ 40 kg/m , stratified by planned and actual mode of birth, were included. Risk-of-bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Ten observational studies were included. Anticipated vaginal birth vs planned CD (5 studies, n = 2216) was associated with higher risk for postpartum hemorrhage (13.0% vs 4.1%, P < .001, numbers needed to harm (NNH = 11), I = 0%) but lower risk for wound complications (7.6% vs 14.5%, P < .001, numbers needed to treat (NNT = 15), I = 58.3%). Planned trial of labor vs repeat CD (3 studies, n = 4144) was associated with higher risk for uterine dehiscence (0.94% vs 0.42%, P = .04, NNH = 200, I = 0%), endometritis (5.1% vs 2.2%, P < .001, NNH = 35, I = 0%), prolonged hospitalization (one study, 30.3% vs 26.0%, P = .003, NNH = 23), low five-minute Apgar scores (4.9% vs 1.7%, RR 2.95 (2.03, 4.28), NNH = 30, I = 0%) and birth trauma (1.1% vs 0.2%, P < .001, NNH = 111, I = 0%). Successful vaginal birth vs intrapartum CD (n = 3625) was associated with lower risk of postpartum hemorrhage (15.1% vs 70%, P < .001, NNT = 2, I = 0%), wound complications (one study, 0% vs 4.4%, P = .007, NNT = 23), prolonged hospitalization (one study, 1.9% vs 6.7%, 0.04, NNT = 21) and low five-minute Apgar scores (one study, 1.0% vs 5.6%, P = .03, NNT = 22), but more birth trauma (5.9% vs 0.6%, P = .005, NNH = 19, I = 0%). Compared groups had dissimilar demographic characteristics. Although studies scored 6-7/9 on risk-of-bias assessment, they were at high-risk for confounding by indication.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from observational studies suggests clinical equipoise regarding the optimal mode of delivery in women with BMI ≥ 40 kg/m and no prior CD. This question is best answered by a randomized trial. Based on an unplanned subgroup analysis, for women with BMI ≥ 40 kg/m and prior CD, repeat CD may be associated with better clinical outcomes.
Topics: Apgar Score; Birth Injuries; Body Mass Index; Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Endometritis; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Length of Stay; Obesity, Maternal; Obesity, Morbid; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Surgical Wound Dehiscence
PubMed: 32997801
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14011 -
Routes of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016Post-caesarean section infection is a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for preventing infection after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Post-caesarean section infection is a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for preventing infection after caesarean delivery. The route of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis should be effective, safe and convenient. Currently, there is a lack of synthesised evidence regarding the benefits and harms of different routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to assess the benefits and harms of different routes of prophylactic antibiotics given for preventing infectious morbidity in women undergoing caesarean section.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two alternative routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section (both elective and emergency). Cross-over trials and quasi-RCTs were not eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies. These steps were checked by a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies (1354 women). The risk of bias was unclear or high in most of the included studies.All of the included trials involved women undergoing caesarean section whether elective or non-elective. Intravenous antibiotics versus antibiotic irrigation (nine studies, 1274 women) Nine studies (1274 women) compared the administration of intravenous antibiotics with antibiotic irrigation. There were no clear differences between groups in terms of this review's maternal primary outcomes: endometritis (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.29; eight studies (966 women) (low-quality evidence)); wound infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.43; seven studies (859 women) (very low-quality evidence)). The outcome of infant sepsis was not reported in the included studies.In terms of this review's maternal secondary outcomes, there were no clear differences between intravenous antibiotic or irrigation antibiotic groups in terms of postpartum febrile morbidity (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.60; three studies (264 women) (very low-quality evidence)); or urinary tract infection (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.15; five studies (660 women) (very low-quality evidence)). In terms of adverse effects of the treatment on the women, no drug allergic reactions were reported in three studies (284 women) (very low-quality evidence), and there were no cases of serious infectious complications reported (very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in terms of maternal length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.28 days, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.79 days, (random-effects analysis), four studies (512 women). No data were reported for the number of women readmitted to hospital. For the baby, there were no data reported in relation to oral thrush, infant length of hospital stay or immediate adverse effects of the antibiotics on the infant. Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis versus oral antibiotic prophylaxis (one study, 80 women) One study (80 women) compared an intravenous versus an oral route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics, but did not report any of this review's primary or secondary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was no clear difference between irrigation and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the risk of post-caesarean endometritis. For other outcomes, there is insufficient evidence regarding which route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics is most effective at preventing post-caesarean infections. The quality of evidence was very low to low, mainly due to limitations in study design and imprecision. Furthermore, most of the included studies were underpowered (small sample sizes with few events). Therefore, we advise caution in the interpretation and generalisability of the results.For future research, there is a need for well-designed, properly-conducted, and clearly-reported RCTs. Such studies should evaluate the more recently available antibiotics, elaborating on the various available routes of administration, and exploring potential neonatal side effects of such interventions.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cesarean Section; Endometritis; Female; Fever; Humans; Length of Stay; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Therapeutic Irrigation; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 27314174
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011876.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis. Adhesions are associated with comorbidities, including pelvic pain, subfertility, and small bowel obstruction. Adhesions also increase the likelihood of further surgery, causing distress and unnecessary expenses. Strategies to prevent adhesion formation include the use of fluid (also called hydroflotation) and gel agents, which aim to prevent healing tissues from touching one another, or drugs, aimed to change an aspect of the healing process, to make adhesions less likely to form.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fluid and pharmacological agents on rates of pain, live births, and adhesion prevention in women undergoing gynaecological surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Epistemonikos to 22 August 2019. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating the use of fluid (including gel) and pharmacological agents to prevent adhesions after gynaecological surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes of interest were pelvic pain; live birth rates; incidence of, mean, and changes in adhesion scores at second look-laparoscopy (SLL); clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy rates; quality of life at SLL; and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials (3492 women), and excluded 11. We were unable to include data from nine studies in the statistical analyses, but the findings of these studies were broadly in keeping with the findings of the meta-analyses. Hydroflotation agents versus no hydroflotation agents (10 RCTs) We are uncertain whether hydroflotation agents affected pelvic pain (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 2.09; one study, 226 women; very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected live birth rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.58; two studies, 208 women; low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Hydroflotation agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with no treatment (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55, four studies, 566 women; high-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in 54% to 75% having adhesions. Hydroflotation agents probably made little or no difference to mean adhesion score at SLL (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.09; four studies, 722 women; moderate-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14; three studies, 310 women; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This suggests that in women with a 26% chance of clinical pregnancy with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in a clinical pregnancy rate of 11% to 28%. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus no treatment (12 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain or live birth rate. Gel agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL compared with no treatment (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; five studies, 147 women; high-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, the use of gel agents would result in 39% to 75% having adhesions. It is unclear whether gel agents affected mean adhesion scores at SLL (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.09; four studies, 159 women; moderate-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.02; one study, 30 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus hydroflotation agents when used as an instillant (3 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. Gel agents probably reduce the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.83; three studies, 538 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with a 46% chance of having adhesions at SLL with a hydroflotation agent, the use of gel agents would result in 21% to 41% having adhesions. We are uncertain whether gel agents improved mean adhesion scores at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (MD -0.79, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.76; one study, 77 women; very low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Steroids (any route) versus no steroids (4 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, incidence of adhesions at SLL or mean adhesion score at SLL. It is unclear whether steroids affected live birth rates compared with no steroids (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.62; two studies, 223 women; low-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; three studies, 410 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Gels and hydroflotation agents appear to be effective adhesion prevention agents for use during gynaecological surgery, but we found no evidence indicating that they improve fertility outcomes or pelvic pain, and further research is required in this area. It is also worth noting that for some comparisons, wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect meant that clinical harm as a result of interventions could not be excluded. Future studies should measure outcomes in a uniform manner, using the modified American Fertility Society score. Statistical findings should be reported in full. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to intervention.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Birth Rate; Dialysis Solutions; Female; Gels; Glucocorticoids; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Icodextrin; Infertility, Female; Pelvic Pain; Plasma Substitutes; Postoperative Complications; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehydration Solutions; Second-Look Surgery; Tissue Adhesions
PubMed: 32683695
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001298.pub5 -
Sexually Transmitted Infections Feb 2022The UK National Chlamydia Screening Programme uses an opportunistic approach. Many programmes use campaigns to raise awareness of chlamydia screening in young people....
What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review.
BACKGROUND
The UK National Chlamydia Screening Programme uses an opportunistic approach. Many programmes use campaigns to raise awareness of chlamydia screening in young people. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of campaigns on uptake of chlamydia screening in young people.
METHODS
We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review of articles assessing the outcomes of community-based health-promotion campaigns to increase chlamydia screening in young people, their experiences of the campaigns and other facilitators and barriers to the conduct of the campaigns. We searched four databases for quantitative and qualitative studies with no language restrictions.
MAIN RESULTS
From 10 329 records identified, 19 studies (20 articles) were included in the review: 14 quantitative, 2 qualitative and 3 mixed methods. All studies with quantitative outcomes were before-after study designs or interrupted time series. The prediction interval for relative change (RC) in test counts ranged from 0.95 to 1.56, with a summary pooled estimate of RC 1.22 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.30, 13 studies, I=97%). For test positivity rate, 95% prediction interval was 0.59 to 1.48, with a summary pooled estimate of RC 0.93 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.07, 8 studies, I=91.8%). Large variation in characteristics between studies precluded exploring outcomes by type of campaign components. Seven major qualitative themes to improve screening were identified: targeting of campaigns; quality of materials and message; language; anonymity; use of technology; relevance; and variety of testing options.
CONCLUSIONS
Health promotion campaigns aiming to increase chlamydia testing in those aged 15-24 years may show some effectiveness in increasing overall numbers of tests, however numbers of positive tests do not follow the same trend. Qualitative findings indicate that campaigns require clear, relevant messaging that displays the full range of testing options and assures anonymity in order to be effective.
Topics: Adolescent; Chlamydia Infections; Health Promotion; Humans; Interrupted Time Series Analysis; Mass Screening; Public Health; Qualitative Research; United Kingdom; Young Adult
PubMed: 34446545
DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2021-055142 -
Medicine Oct 2020Prostatitis is a common urogenital system disease in men which affects 5% to 9% of adult men worldwide and accounts for approximately 8% of visits to urologists. In the...
BACKGROUND
Prostatitis is a common urogenital system disease in men which affects 5% to 9% of adult men worldwide and accounts for approximately 8% of visits to urologists. In the past years, its pathogenesis is complicated and the classification of it is not clear, so the effect of treatment measures is not significant. Recently, the treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) includes nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, phytotherapy, hormonal therapy, alpha-blockers, anti-anxiolytic, and acupuncture, which provide more choice for the urologist. But there still are some limitations. scholars. Many studies suggest radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy may be the better option in the treatment of CP/CPPS. However, the efficacy and safety of it still lack solid evidence.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
The electronic databases of MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.org, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wan fang Database, China Biology Medicine Database, VIP Science Technology Periodical Database, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry will be retrieved. All the randomized controlled trials of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) for patients with CP/CPPS will be included. We will evaluate the outcomes including National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index, visual analog scale, international prostate symptom score, international index of erectile function-5, and conduct this study strictly according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
RESULTS
The current study is a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis without results, and data analysis will be carried out after the protocol. We will share our findings on October 31st of 2021.
CONCLUSION
rESWT as a noninvasive treatment with no pain, which will be accepted more easily. Although some studies have suggested that rESWT can relieve the symptoms of patients, the efficacy and safety of it still lack solid evidence. To address this limitation scientifically and systematically, this study will inspect the efficacy and safety of the rESWT treatment in patients with CP/CPPS by integrating various studies.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
Formal ethical approval is not required in this protocol. We will collect and analyze data based on published studies, and since there are no patients involved in this study, individual privacy will not be under concerns. The results of this review will be disseminated to peer-reviewed journals or submit to related conferences.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER
INPLASY202090076.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Humans; Male; Pelvic Pain; Prostatitis; Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33126371
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022981 -
PloS One 2023To provide a summary of the economic and methodological evidence on capturing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) associated costs for curable sexually transmitted infections...
OBJECTIVE
To provide a summary of the economic and methodological evidence on capturing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) associated costs for curable sexually transmitted infections (STIs). To explore approaches for incorporating the cost of AMR within an economic model evaluating different treatment strategies for gonorrhoea, as a case study.
METHODS
A systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022298232). MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, International Health Technology Assessment Database, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and EconLit databases were searched up to August 2022. Included studies were analysed, quality assessed and findings synthesised narratively. Additionally, an economic evaluation which incorporated AMR was undertaken using a decision tree model and primary data from a randomised clinical trial comparing gentamicin therapy with standard treatment (ceftriaxone). AMR was incorporated into the evaluation using three approaches-integrating the additional costs of treating resistant infections, conducting a threshold analysis, and accounting for the societal cost of resistance for the antibiotic consumed.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included in the systematic review with the majority focussed on AMR in gonorrhoea. The cost of ceftriaxone resistant gonorrhoea and the cost of ceftriaxone sparing strategies were significant and related to the direct medical costs from persistent gonorrhoea infections, sequelae of untreated infections, gonorrhoea attributable-HIV transmission and AMR testing. However, AMR definition, the collection and incorporation of AMR associated costs, and the perspectives adopted were inconsistent or limited. Using the review findings, different approaches were explored for incorporating AMR into an economic evaluation comparing gentamicin to ceftriaxone for gonorrhoea treatment. Although the initial analysis showed that ceftriaxone was the cheaper treatment, gentamicin became cost-neutral if the clinical efficacy of ceftriaxone reduced from 98% to 92%. By incorporating societal costs of antibiotic use, gentamicin became cost-neutral if the cost of ceftriaxone treatment increased from £4.60 to £8.44 per patient.
CONCLUSIONS
Inclusion of AMR into economic evaluations may substantially influence estimates of cost-effectiveness and affect subsequent treatment recommendations for gonorrhoea and other STIs. However, robust data on the cost of AMR and a standardised approach for conducting economic evaluations for STI treatment which incorporate AMR are lacking, and requires further developmental research.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ceftriaxone; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Gentamicins; Gonorrhea; Sexually Transmitted Diseases; State Medicine
PubMed: 37856496
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292273