-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Exercise has a number of health benefits and has been recommended as a treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea (period pain), but the evidence for its effectiveness on...
BACKGROUND
Exercise has a number of health benefits and has been recommended as a treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea (period pain), but the evidence for its effectiveness on primary dysmenorrhoea is unclear. This review examined the available evidence supporting the use of exercise to treat primary dysmenorrhoea.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of exercise for women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED and CINAHL (from inception to July 2019). We searched two clinical trial databases (inception to March 2019) and handsearched reference lists and previous systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies if they randomised women with moderate-to-severe primary dysmenorrhoea to receive exercise versus no treatment, attention control, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or the oral contraceptive pill. Cross-over studies and cluster-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed eligible studies for risk of bias, and extracted data from each study. We contacted study authors for missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were menstrual pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included overall menstrual symptoms, usage of rescue analgesic medication, restriction of daily life activities, absence from work or school and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 12 trials with 854 women in the review, with 10 trials and 754 women in the meta-analysis. Nine of the 10 studies compared exercise with no treatment, and one study compared exercise with NSAIDs. No studies compared exercise with attention control or with the oral contraceptive pill. Studies used low-intensity exercise (stretching, core strengthening or yoga) or high-intensity exercise (Zumba or aerobic training); none of the included studies used resistance training.Exercise versus no treatmentExercise may have a large effect on reducing menstrual pain intensity compared to no exercise (standard mean difference (SMD) -1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.06 to -1.66; 9 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), n = 632; I= 91%; low-quality evidence). This SMD corresponds to a 25 mm reduction on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and is likely to be clinically significant. We are uncertain if there is any difference in adverse event rates between exercise and no treatment.We are uncertain if exercise reduces overall menstrual symptoms (as measured by the Moos Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MMDQ)), such as back pain or fatigue compared to no treatment (mean difference (MD) -33.16, 95% CI -40.45 to -25.87; 1 RCT, n = 120; very low-quality evidence), or improves mental quality of life (MD 4.40, 95% CI 1.59 to 7.21; 1 RCT, n = 55; very low-quality evidence) or physical quality of life (as measured by the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12)) compared to no exercise (MD 3.40, 95% CI -1.68 to 8.48; 1 RCT, n = 55; very low-quality evidence) when compared to no treatment. No studies reported on any changes in restriction of daily life activities or on absence from work or school.Exercise versus NSAIDsWe are uncertain if exercise, when compared with mefenamic acid, reduced menstrual pain intensity (MD -7.40, 95% CI -8.36 to -6.44; 1 RCT, n = 122; very low-quality evidence), use of rescue analgesic medication (risk ratio (RR) 1.77, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.60; 1 RCT, n = 122; very low-quality evidence) or absence from work or school (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.03; 1 RCT, n = 122; very low-quality evidence). None of the included studies reported on adverse events, overall menstrual symptoms, restriction of daily life activities or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The current low-quality evidence suggests that exercise, performed for about 45 to 60 minutes each time, three times per week or more, regardless of intensity, may provide a clinically significant reduction in menstrual pain intensity of around 25 mm on a 100 mm VAS. All studies used exercise regularly throughout the month, with some studies asking women not to exercise during menstruation. Given the overall health benefits of exercise, and the relatively low risk of side effects reported in the general population, women may consider using exercise, either alone or in conjunction with other modalities, such as NSAIDs, to manage menstrual pain. It is unclear if the benefits of exercise persist after regular exercise has stopped or if they are similar in women over the age of 25. Further research is required, using validated outcome measures, adequate blinding and suitable comparator groups reflecting current best practice or accounting for the extra attention given during exercise.
Topics: Dysmenorrhea; Exercise; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Menstruation; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31538328
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004142.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Heavy menstrual bleeding and pain are common reasons women discontinue intrauterine device (IUD) use. Copper IUD (Cu IUD) users tend to experience increased menstrual... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding and pain are common reasons women discontinue intrauterine device (IUD) use. Copper IUD (Cu IUD) users tend to experience increased menstrual bleeding, whereas levonorgestrel IUD (LNG IUD) users tend to have irregular menstruation. Medical therapies used to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with Cu and LNG IUD use include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), anti-fibrinolytics and paracetamol. We analysed treatment and prevention interventions separately because the expected outcomes for treatment and prevention interventions differ. We did not combine different drug classes in the analysis as they have different mechanisms of action. This is an update of a review originally on NSAIDs. The review scope has been widened to include all interventions for treatment or prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD use.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have assessed strategies for treatment and prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD use, for example, pharmacotherapy and alternative therapies.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs in any language that tested strategies for treatment or prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD (Cu IUD, LNG IUD or other IUD) use. The comparison could be no intervention, placebo or another active intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were volume of menstrual blood loss, duration of menstruation and painful menstruation. We used a random-effects model in all meta-analyses. Review authors assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 21 trials involving 3689 participants from middle- and high-income countries. Women were 18 to 45 years old and either already using an IUD or had just had one placed for contraception. The included trials examined NSAIDs and other interventions. Eleven were treatment trials, of these seven were on users of the Cu IUD, one on LNG IUD and three on an unknown type. Ten were prevention trials, six focused on Cu IUD users, and four on LNG IUD users. Sixteen trials had high risk of detection bias due to subjective assessment of pain and bleeding. Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding Cu IUD Vitamin B1 resulted in fewer pads used per day (mean difference (MD) -7.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.50 to -5.50) and fewer bleeding days (MD -2.00, 95% CI -2.38 to -1.62; 1 trial; 110 women; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of naproxen on the volume of menstruation compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.78; 1 trial, 40 women; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment with mefenamic acid resulted in less volume of blood loss compared to tranexamic acid (MD -64.26, 95% CI -105.65 to -22.87; 1 trial, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). However, there was no difference in duration of bleeding with treatment of mefenamic acid or tranexamic acid (MD 0.08 days, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.42, 2 trials, 152 women; low-certainty evidence). LNG IUD The use of ulipristal acetate in LNG IUD may not reduce the number of bleeding days in 90 days in comparison to placebo (MD -9.30 days, 95% CI -26.76 to 8.16; 1 trial, 24 women; low-certainty evidence). Unknown IUD type Mefenamic acid may not reduce volume of bleeding compared to Vitex agnus measured by pictorial blood assessment chart (MD -2.40, 95% CI -13.77 to 8.97; 1 trial; 84 women; low-certainty evidence). Treatment of pain Cu IUD Treatment with tranexamic acid and sodium diclofenac may result in little or no difference in the occurrence of pain (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.25; 1 trial, 38 women; very low-certainty evidence). Unknown IUD type Naproxen may reduce pain (MD 4.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.29; 1 trial, 33 women; low-certainty evidence). Prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding Cu IUD We found very low-certainty evidence that tolfenamic acid may prevent heavy bleeding compared to placebo (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.85; 1 trial, 310 women). There was no difference between ibuprofen and placebo in blood volume reduction (MD -14.11, 95% CI -36.04 to 7.82) and duration of bleeding (MD -0.2 days, 95% CI -1.40 to 1.0; 1 trial, 28 women, low-certainty evidence). Aspirin may not prevent heavy bleeding in comparison to paracetamol (MD -0.30, 95% CI -26.16 to 25.56; 1 trial, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence). LNG IUD Ulipristal acetate may increase the percentage of bleeding days compared to placebo (MD 9.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 17.52; 1 trial, 118 women; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data for analysis in a single trial comparing mifepristone and vitamin B. There were insufficient data for analysis in the single trial comparing tranexamic acid and mefenamic acid and in another trial comparing naproxen with estradiol. Prevention of pain Cu IUD There was low-certainty evidence that tolfenamic acid may not be effective to prevent painful menstruation compared to placebo (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.14; 1 trial, 310 women). Ibuprofen may not reduce menstrual cramps compared to placebo (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.95; 1 trial, 20 women, low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings from this review should be interpreted with caution due to low- and very low-certainty evidence. Included trials were limited; the majority of the evidence was derived from single trials with few participants. Further research requires larger trials and improved trial reporting. The use of vitamin B1 and mefenamic acid to treat heavy menstruation and tolfenamic acid to prevent heavy menstruation associated with Cu IUD should be investigated. More trials are needed to generate evidence for the treatment and prevention of heavy and painful menstruation associated with LNG IUD.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Ibuprofen; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Mefenamic Acid; Menorrhagia; Middle Aged; Naproxen; Thiamine; Tranexamic Acid; Young Adult
PubMed: 36017945
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006034.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2019Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a menstrual blood loss perceived by women as excessive that affects the health of women of reproductive age, interfering with their...
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a menstrual blood loss perceived by women as excessive that affects the health of women of reproductive age, interfering with their physical, emotional, social and material quality of life. Whilst abnormal menstrual bleeding may be associated with underlying pathology, in the present context, HMB is defined as excessive menstrual bleeding in the absence of other systemic or gynaecological disease. The first-line therapy is usually medical, avoiding possibly unnecessary surgery. Of the wide variety of medications used to reduce HMB, oral progestogens were originally the most commonly prescribed agents. This review assesses the effectiveness of two different types and regimens of oral progestogens in reducing ovulatory HMB.This is the update of a Cochrane review last updated in 2007, and originally named "Effectiveness of cyclical progestagen therapy in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding" (1998).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of oral progestogen therapy taken either during the luteal phase (short cycle) or for a longer course of 21 days per cycle (long cycle), in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss in women of reproductive age with HMB.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2019 we searched Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility's specialized register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo. We also searched trials registers, other sources of unpublished or grey literature and reference lists of retrieved trials. We also checked citation lists of review articles to identify trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different treatments for HMB that included cyclical oral progestogens were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for clarification of methods or additional data when necessary. We only assessed adverse events if they were separately measured in the included trials. We compared cyclical oral progestogen in different regimens and placebo or other treatments. Our primary outcomes were menstrual blood loss and satisfaction with treatment; the secondary outcomes were number of days of bleeding, quality of life, compliance and acceptability of treatment, adverse events and costs.
MAIN RESULTS
This review identified 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1071 women in total. Most of the women knew which treatment they were receiving, which may have influenced their judgements about menstrual blood loss and satisfaction. Other aspects of trial quality varied among trials.We did not identify any RCTs comparing progestogen treatment with placebo. We assessed comparisons between oral progestogens and other medical therapies separately according to different regimens.Short-cycle progestogen therapy during the luteal phase (medroxyprogesterone acetate or norethisterone for 7 to 10 days, from day 15 to 19) was inferior to other medical therapy, including tranexamic acid, danazol and the progestogen-releasing intrauterine system (Pg-IUS (off of the market since 2001)), releasing 60 mcg of progesterone daily, with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss (mean difference (MD) 37.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 17.67 to 56.91; I = 50%; 6 trials, 145 women). The rate of satisfaction and the quality of life with treatment was similar in both groups. The number of bleeding days was greater on the short cycle progestogen group compared to other medical treatments. Adverse events (such as gastrointestinal symptoms and weight gain) were more likely with danazol when compared with progestogen treatment. We note that danazol is no longer in general use for treating HMB.Long-cycle progestogen therapy (medroxyprogesterone acetate or norethisterone), from day 5 to day 26 of the menstrual cycle, is also inferior to the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), releasing tranexamic acid and ormeloxifene, but may be similar to the combined vaginal ring with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss (MD 16.88, 95% CI 10.93 to 22.84; I = 87%; 4 trials, 355 women). A higher proportion of women taking norethisterone found their treatment unacceptable compared to women having Pg-IUS (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.40; 1 trial, 40 women). However, the adverse effects of breast tenderness and intermenstrual bleeding were more likely in women with the LNG-IUS. No trials reported on days of bleeding or quality of life for this comparison.The evidence supporting these findings was limited by low or very low gradings of quality; thus, we are uncertain about the findings and there is a potential that they may change if we identify other trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- or very low-quality evidence suggests that short-course progestogen was inferior to other medical therapy, including tranexamic acid, danazol and the Pg-IUS with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss. Long cycle progestogen therapy (medroxyprogesterone acetate or norethisterone) was also inferior to the LNG-IUS, tranexamic acid and ormeloxifene, but may be similar to the combined vaginal ring with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss.
Topics: Danazol; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Menorrhagia; Progesterone; Progestins; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tranexamic Acid
PubMed: 31425626
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001016.pub3 -
Current Drug Research Reviews Aug 2023Dysmenorrhea is the most common periodic pain, which affects more than 50% of women with regular menstruation. Fenugreek is one of the medicinal plants with analgesic...
INTRODUCTION
Dysmenorrhea is the most common periodic pain, which affects more than 50% of women with regular menstruation. Fenugreek is one of the medicinal plants with analgesic properties. This study aimed to determine the effect of fenugreek application in the severity of dysmenorrhea and its side effects in women with dysmenorrhea. PICO: population: women with dysmenorrhea; intervention: fenugreek; comparison: control groups; and outcome: reduction in the severity of dysmenorrhea and its side effects Methodology: English database (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science) and Persian database [SID (Scientific Information Database) and Magiran] were used for research until February 11, 2023, using the keywords "Dysmenorrhea [Mesh]," "Foenum [Mesh]," "fenugreek [Mesh]," and "Trigonella [Mesh]." The reference list of the selected articles was also checked. The quality assessment was conducted through the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0. The RevMan 5.3 software was used to analyze and report the data of the entered studies. Meta-analysis results were reported with the standardized mean difference (95% confidence interval). A subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of control groups. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
After removing duplicates and ineligible cases, four articles were included in the systematic review out of the 1526 records obtained. The results showed that the pain intensity caused by primary dysmenorrhea decreased with fenugreek compared to placebo (pooled result SMD: -2.21; 95% CI: -3.26 to -1.17; Z: 4.17; P <0.001). There was no significant difference between fenugreek with mefenamic acid (SMD: 0.05; 95% CI: -0.57 to 0.67; Z: 0.17; P = 0.86) and fenugreek with Chandrasura churna (SMD: 0.06; 95% CI: -0.56 to 0.68; Z: 0.19; P = 0.85). Bias, in terms of incomplete outcome data and selective reporting, was low risk in all studies, and the available evidence was low quality according to the GRADE approach.
CONCLUSION
The results showed that the effect of fenugreek on pain intensity in dysmenorrhea is highly uncertain. The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. Regarding the importance of the health and quality of life of women of reproductive age and the low quality of evidence of the studies, clinical trials with stronger methodology are suggested in this field.
PubMed: 37594100
DOI: 10.2174/2589977515666230818092814 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies...
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce prostaglandin levels, which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of NSAIDs in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women of reproductive years with HMB.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched, in April 2019, the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the clinical trial registries and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs or combined with other medical therapy with each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment-induced) causes for their HMB.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We identified 19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (759 women) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and two review authors independently extracted data. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes from the data of nine trials. We described in data tables the results of the remaining seven cross-over trials with data unsuitable for pooling, one trial with skewed data, and one trial with missing variances. One trial had no data available for analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing HMB but less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS). Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs, but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment, based on trials from 1980 to 1990. However, currently danazol is not a usual or recommended treatment for HMB. There was no clear evidence of difference between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system and the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. The evidence quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitations being risk of bias and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo, but are less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or LNG IUS. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCP or the older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Menorrhagia; Naproxen; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31535715
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000400.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) impacts the quality of life of otherwise healthy women. The perception of HMB is subjective and management depends upon, among other... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) impacts the quality of life of otherwise healthy women. The perception of HMB is subjective and management depends upon, among other factors, the severity of the symptoms, a woman's age, her wish to get pregnant, and the presence of other pathologies. Heavy menstrual bleeding was classically defined as greater than or equal to 80 mL of blood loss per menstrual cycle. Currently the definition is based on the woman's perception of excessive bleeding which is affecting her quality of life. The intrauterine device was originally developed as a contraceptive but the addition of progestogens to these devices resulted in a large reduction in menstrual blood loss: users of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) reported reductions of up to 90%. Insertion may, however, be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL (from inception to June 2019); and we searched grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in women of reproductive age treated with LNG-IUS devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and conducted GRADE assessments of the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 RCTs (2511 women). Limitations in the evidence included risk of attrition bias and low numbers of participants. The studies compared the following interventions. LNG-IUS versus other medical therapy The other medical therapies were norethisterone acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, oral contraceptive pill, mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid or usual medical treatment (where participants could choose the oral treatment that was most suitable). The LNG-IUS may improve HMB, lowering menstrual blood loss according to the alkaline haematin method (mean difference (MD) 66.91 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 42.61 to 91.20; 2 studies, 170 women; low-certainty evidence); and the Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart (MD 55.05, 95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; 3 studies, 335 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS may have any effect on women's satisfaction up to one year (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 3 studies, 141 women; I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS probably leads to slightly higher quality of life measured with the SF-36 compared with other medical therapy if (MD 2.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.74; 1 study: 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence) or with the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MD 13.40, 95% CI 9.89 to 16.91; 1 trial, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS and other medical therapies probably give rise to similar numbers of women with serious adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 1 study, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women using other medical therapy are probably more likely to withdraw from treatment for any reason (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.60; 1 study, 571 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and to experience treatment failure than women with LNG-IUS (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.44; 6 studies, 535 women; moderate-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus endometrial resection or ablation (EA) Bleeding outcome results are inconsistent. We are uncertain of the effect of the LNG-IUS compared to EA on rates of amenorrhoea (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.72; 8 studies, 431 women; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence) and hypomenorrhoea (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.33; 4 studies, 200 women; low-certainty evidence) and eumenorrhoea (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.00; 3 studies, 160 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether both treatments may have similar rates of satisfaction with treatment at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 5 studies, 317 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if the LNG-IUS compared to EA has any effect on quality of life, measured with SF-36 (MD -14.40, 95% CI -22.63 to -6.17; 1 study, 33 women; very low-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS compared with EA are probably more likely to have any adverse event (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.94; 3 studies, 201 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS may experience more treatment failure compared to EA at one year follow up (persistent HMB or requirement of additional treatment) (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.90; 5 studies, 320 women; low-certainty evidence); or requirement of hysterectomy may be higher at one year follow up (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.42; 3 studies, 400 women; low-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus hysterectomy We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS has any effect on HMB compared with hysterectomy (RR for amenorrhoea 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; 1 study, 75 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is difference between LNG-IUS and hysterectomy in satisfaction at five years (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 1 study, 232 women; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SF-36 MD 2.20, 95% CI -2.93 to 7.33; 1 study, 221 women; low-certainty evidence). Women in the LNG-IUS group may be more likely to have treatment failure requiring hysterectomy for HMB at 1-year follow-up compared to the hysterectomy group (RR 48.18, 95% CI 2.96 to 783.22; 1 study, 236 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported cost data suitable for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The LNG-IUS may improve HMB and quality of life compared to other medical therapy; the LNG-IUS is probably similar for HMB compared to endometrial destruction techniques; and we are uncertain if it is better or worse than hysterectomy. The LNG-IUS probably has similar serious adverse events to other medical therapy and it is more likely to have any adverse events than EA.
Topics: Antifibrinolytic Agents; Contraceptives, Oral; Endometrium; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Mefenamic Acid; Menorrhagia; Norethindrone; Progesterone; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tranexamic Acid; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32529637
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002126.pub4 -
Journal of Complementary & Integrative... Jan 2021One of the most common complaints for women is dysmenorrhea. Several studies investigated the treatment effects of medicinal plants on primary dysmenorrhea. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
One of the most common complaints for women is dysmenorrhea. Several studies investigated the treatment effects of medicinal plants on primary dysmenorrhea.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the effect of (Fennel) on pain in primary dysmenorrhea in comparison to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as mefenamic acid.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Science Direct, ProQuest, ISI Web of Science, Google Scholar, Magiran, SID, Iran Medex, and Irandoc were searched up to January 2019. Quality assessment of clinical trials was conducted using Jadad scoring system. Totally, 12 studies were entered in the meta-analysis. was calculated to determine heterogeneity. Fixed effects and/or random effects models were applied.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis of these trials showed that intake decreased significantly the intensity of dysmenorrhea compared to the placebo (SMD -0.632; CI: -0.827 to -0.436; p<0.001; heterogeneity p=0.807; =0%; fixed effect model; seven articles). However, the effect of Mefenamic acid with was not different from each other (SMD=-0.214; CI: -0.446 to 0.017; p=0.07; heterogeneity p=0.58; =0%; fixed effect model; six trials).
CONCLUSION
The alleviates dysmenorrhea. Regarding the same effect of with NSAIDs, it is highly recommend to the women suffered from dysmenorrhea specifically the ones who have high tendency toward herbal medicine.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Foeniculum; Humans; Mefenamic Acid; Phytotherapy; Plant Preparations
PubMed: 34187122
DOI: 10.1515/jcim-2019-0212 -
Journal of Complementary & Integrative... Jul 2019Introduction Vitex agnus-castus, also called Vitex, is a plant with many medicinal properties. This systematic study examined the evidence of the effectiveness and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Introduction Vitex agnus-castus, also called Vitex, is a plant with many medicinal properties. This systematic study examined the evidence of the effectiveness and safety of Vitex on menstrual bleeding (primary outcome) and its side effects (secondary outcomes). Materials and methods This systematic review study examined all papers that were a randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental, and cross-over conducted on the effect of Vitex on menstrual bleeding, following the PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcomes) criteria without any time limits in December 2017. The participants were women of reproductive age with no gynecologic disorders. The intervention included the use of Vitex in form of tablets, capsule, or oral drops with different doses. The control group included the placebo or mefenamic acid group. The search strategy in this study was in accordance with MeSH terms. The keywords used separately or in combination with other words were Menstrual bleeding OR Menstruation OR Menorrhagia AND Vitexcastus OR Vitex OR Chasteberry AND randomized controlled trial OR randomized trial OR randomized clinical trial OR randomized controlled. All papers, including Persian or English, were searched for in the databases; Medline (through PubMed), Scopus, Embase (through Ovid), Cochrane Library, Web of Sciences, Google Scholar, SID, Magiran, Irandoc, and Iranmedex, without any time limits. Two authors independently reviewed the quality of the papers and assessed the risk of bias based on Cochrane handbook, and the disputes were resolved through discussion and consensus with a third person. The meta-analysis was done on continuous data (mean of menstrual bleeding). In meta-analysis, subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of comparison group. Results Out of the 8,905 searched papers in the databases, 8,905 titles, 720 abstracts, 85 full texts, and 20 references of the papers were reviewed, of which 5 papers entered this study. Based on the subgroup analysis, the consumption of Vitex did not have a significant effect on the amount of menstrual bleeding compared to the placebo group in the first (mean difference [MD]: 3.08; 95% CI: -3.11-9.26; p=0.33; I2=0%) and second menstrual cycles (MD: 0.00; 95% CI: -5.75-5.75; p=1.00; I2=0%). Also, the Higham mean score was statistically more in the Vitex group compared to the mefenamic acid group in the first menstrual cycle (MD: 7.17; 95% CI: 0.33-14.01; p=0.04; I2=0%) but there was no statistical significant difference between Vitex and mefenamic acid groups in the second menstrual cycle (MD: 12.18; 95% CI: -5.57-29.94; p=0.18; I2=75%). Only nausea and abdominal pain were reported as side effects of Vitex in the included studies. Conclusions The results of this study showed that the consumption of Vitex in the intervention group did not have a significant effect on menstrual bleeding in comparison with the placebo group. However, due to the relatively low quality of the papers, it is essential to perform clinical trials with an appropriate design to determine the effect of Vitex on menstrual bleeding.
Topics: Female; Humans; Menstruation; Plant Preparations; Plants, Medicinal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitex
PubMed: 31369395
DOI: 10.1515/jcim-2018-0053 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Within the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, pandemics impact upon women's assessment and treatment by healthcare providers.
BACKGROUND
Within the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, pandemics impact upon women's assessment and treatment by healthcare providers.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews evaluating interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding that are commonly available during pandemics.
METHODS
We sought published Cochrane Reviews, evaluating interventions that can continue during pandemics for women with heavy menstrual bleeding with no known underlying cause. We identified Cochrane Reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in June 2020. The primary outcome was menstrual bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, side effects, and serious adverse events. We undertook the selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool, and the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four Cochrane Reviews, with 11 comparisons, data from 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and 3196 women. We assessed all the reviews to be high quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) NSAIDs may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (mean difference (MD) -124 mL per cycle, 95% confidence interval (CI) -186 to -62 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 11 women; low-certainty evidence). Mefenamic acid may be similar to naproxen (MD 21 mL per cycle, 95% CI -6 to 48 mL per cycle; 2 RCTs, 61 women; low-certainty evidence), and NSAIDs may be similar to combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding (MD 25 mL per cycle, 95% CI -22 to 73 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 26 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be be less effective in reducing menstrual bleeding than antifibrinolytics (relative risk (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 2 RCTs, 161 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs reduce menstrual blood loss more than short-cycle progestogens (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 1 RCT 32 women; very low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics Antifibrinolytics appear to be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (MD -53 mL per cycle, 95% CI -63 to -44 mL per cycle; 4 RCTs, 565 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 297 women; low-certainty evidence), and they are probably similar on the incidence of serious adverse events (thrombotic events; RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.46; 2 RCT, 468 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than short-cycle progestogen (MD -111 mL per cycle, 95% CI -178 mL to -44 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 46 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to short-cycle progestogens on quality of life (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-certainty evidence), patient satisfaction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.39; 1 RCT, 42 women; very low-certainty evidence), or side effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 3 RCTs, 211 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle progestogen (MD -9 points per cycle, 95% CI -30 to 12 points per cycle; 2 RCTs, 184 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may increase self-reported improvement in menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle medroxyprogesterone acetate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.61; 1 RCT, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to long-cycle progestogens on quality of life (MD 5, 95% CI -2.49 to 12.49; 1 RCT, 90 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to long-cycle progestogens on side effects (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.00; 2 RCTs, 184 women; very low-certainty evidence). There were no trials comparing antifibrinolytics to combined hormonal contraceptives. Combined hormonal contraceptives Combined hormonal contraceptives appear to be more effective for heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo or no treatment (RR 13.25, 95% CI 2.94 to 59.64; 2 RCTs, 363 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Combined hormonal contraceptives are probably similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.60; 2 RCTs, 411 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Progestogens There were no trials comparing progestogens to placebo. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary RCTs, inconsistency between the primary RCTs, and imprecision in effect estimates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics and combined hormonal contraceptives reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with NSAIDs and short-cycle progestogens, but we are unable to draw conclusions about the effects of antifibrinolytics compared to long-cycle progestogens, on low-certainty evidence.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Female; Humans; Mefenamic Acid; Menorrhagia; Pandemics; Placebos; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 32700364
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013651.pub2 -
The European Journal of Contraception &... Dec 2020Up to 60% of women discontinue using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) within 5 years because of bleeding irregularities, pain and/or systemic...
OBJECTIVE
Up to 60% of women discontinue using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) within 5 years because of bleeding irregularities, pain and/or systemic progestogenic adverse effects. The aim of the study was to assess treatment options for bleeding irregularities in women using the 52 mg LNG-IUS.
METHODS
Database searches of Medline, Embase/Ovid and the Cochrane Library were carried out, and journals were searched by hand, for relevant studies published from database inception to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies and case-control studies of premenopausal women using the LNG-IUS and receiving medical treatment for bleeding irregularities. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment of retrieved articles were carried out independently by two pairs of reviewers. The primary outcome was the reduction of bleeding/spotting days.
RESULTS
Of the 3061 studies identified, eight met our inclusion criteria: six RCTs and two prospective cohort studies. The eight studies enrolled a total of 677 women who were treated with tamoxifen, mifepristone, ulipristal acetate, naproxen, oestradiol, mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid or the progesterone receptor modulator CDB 2914. The results of our analysis indicated that naproxen may be effective for the prophylactic treatment of bleeding immediately (<12 weeks) after LNG-IUS insertion (high level of evidence). Oestradiol may be effective in treating ongoing bleeding irregularities >6 months after insertion (low level of evidence).
CONCLUSION
Evidence for the medical treatment of (ongoing) bleeding irregularities during use of the LNG-IUS is lacking and more research is needed on the topic.
Topics: Contraceptive Agents, Hormonal; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Estradiol; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Menorrhagia; Naproxen; Premenopause
PubMed: 32757842
DOI: 10.1080/13625187.2020.1797663