-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women. About 40% of women will experience prolapse in their lifetime, with the proportion expected to rise in line with an...
BACKGROUND
Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women. About 40% of women will experience prolapse in their lifetime, with the proportion expected to rise in line with an ageing population. Women experience a variety of troublesome symptoms as a consequence of prolapse, including a feeling of 'something coming down' into the vagina, pain, urinary symptoms, bowel symptoms and sexual difficulties. Treatment for prolapse includes surgery, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and vaginal pessaries. Vaginal pessaries are passive mechanical devices designed to support the vagina and hold the prolapsed organs back in the anatomically correct position. The most commonly used pessaries are made from polyvinyl-chloride, polythene, silicone or latex. Pessaries are frequently used by clinicians with high numbers of clinicians offering a pessary as first-line treatment for prolapse. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2003 and last published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women; and summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations of this intervention.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 28 January 2020). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the authors of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials which included a pessary for pelvic organ prolapse in at least one arm of the study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed abstracts, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and carried out GRADE assessments with arbitration from a third review author if necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies involving a total of 478 women with various stages of prolapse, all of which took place in high-income countries. In one trial, only six of the 113 recruited women consented to random assignment to an intervention and no data are available for those six women. We could not perform any meta-analysis because each of the trials addressed a different comparison. None of the trials reported data about perceived resolution of prolapse symptoms or about psychological outcome measures. All studies reported data about perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms. Generally, the trials were at high risk of performance bias, due to lack of blinding, and low risk of selection bias. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for imprecision resulting from the low numbers of women participating in the trials. Pessary versus no treatment: at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain about the effect of pessaries compared with no treatment on perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms (mean difference (MD) in questionnaire scores -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.61 to 0.55; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), and cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.09; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In this comparison we did not find any evidence relating to prolapse-specific quality of life or to the number of women experiencing adverse events (abnormal vaginal bleeding or de novo voiding difficulty). Pessary versus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT): at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain if there is a difference between pessaries and PFMT in terms of women's perceived improvement in prolapse symptoms (MD -9.60, 95% CI -22.53 to 3.33; 137 women; low-certainty evidence), prolapse-specific quality of life (MD -3.30, 95% CI -8.70 to 15.30; 1 study; 116 women; low-certainty evidence), or cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -2.30, 95% -5.20 to 0.60; 1 study; 48 women; low-certainty evidence). Pessaries may result in a large increase in risk of adverse events compared with PFMT (RR 75.25, 95% CI 4.70 to 1205.45; 1 study; 97 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included increased vaginal discharge, and/or increased urinary incontinence and/or erosion or irritation of the vaginal walls. Pessary plus PFMT versus PFMT alone: at 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably leads to more women perceiving improvement in their prolapse symptoms compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.94; 1 study; 260 women; moderate-certainty evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably improves women's prolapse-specific quality of life compared with PFMT alone (median (interquartile range (IQR)) POPIQ score: pessary plus PFMT 0.3 (0 to 22.2); 132 women; PFMT only 8.9 (0 to 64.9); 128 women; P = 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence). Pessary plus PFMT may slightly increase the risk of abnormal vaginal bleeding compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 6.91; 1 study; 260 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if pessary plus PFMT has any effect on the risk of de novo voiding difficulty compared with PFMT alone (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.19; 1 study; 189 women; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain if pessaries improve pelvic organ prolapse symptoms for women compared with no treatment or PFMT but pessaries in addition to PFMT probably improve women's pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and prolapse-specific quality of life. However, there may be an increased risk of adverse events with pessaries compared to PFMT. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and measure clinically important outcomes such as prolapse specific quality of life and resolution of prolapse symptoms. The review found two relevant economic evaluations. Of these, one assessed the cost-effectiveness of pessary treatment, expectant management and surgical procedures, and the other compared pessary treatment to PFMT.
Topics: Bias; Female; Humans; Muscle Strength; Pelvic Floor; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Pessaries; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Prolapse; Urethral Diseases; Urinary Bladder Diseases; Uterine Prolapse
PubMed: 33207004
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004010.pub4 -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology :... Jul 2022This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate, using the best level of evidence, the possible benefits and advantages of using peanut ball (PB) in women with an epidural during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate, using the best level of evidence, the possible benefits and advantages of using peanut ball (PB) in women with an epidural during labour on the maternal and neonatal outcomes. This research was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PEDro, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases, with no period or language restrictions. The terms 'labor' and 'peanut ball' were used. Clinical trials (randomised and non-randomised) were included when comparing a group of parturients using PB with a control group under usual care. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised were eligible for this systematic review. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of evidence which was evaluated by the GRADE system. Quantitative analysis through meta-analysis was also applied whenever possible. In this updated review, we included four studies with a total of 818 women in labour after the use of pharmacological analgesia. Our GRADE ratings of evidence ranged from high to low quality. Overall, the included studies varied in their risk of bias, in which most were considered with some concerns. There is high evidence that the use of PB after epidural analgesia reduces the duration of the first period of labour by 87 minutes and moderate evidence that it increases the chance of vaginal delivery 11%. However, there is no evidence about other maternal and neonatal outcomes.Impact Statement The peanut ball (PB) is used after the use of pharmacological analgesia, as it favours the opening of the pelvic canal and helps women to adopt more comfortable postures, but its real effects are not clear. Our results suggest that using the PB reduces the duration of the first period of labour after an epidural and increases the chance of a vaginal birth. These findings recommend the use of a PB after an epidural and further research with women without the use of pharmacological analgesia.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Arachis; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Obstetric; Pregnancy
PubMed: 34996318
DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2021.1997959 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Oct 2023Menstrual cycle (MC) disorders and MC-related symptoms can have debilitating effects on the health and performance of female athletes. As the participation of women in...
BACKGROUND
Menstrual cycle (MC) disorders and MC-related symptoms can have debilitating effects on the health and performance of female athletes. As the participation of women in sports continues to increase, understanding the prevalence of a range of MC disorders and MC-related symptoms may guide preventive strategies to protect the health and optimise the performance of female athletes.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the prevalence of MC disorders and MC-related symptoms among female athletes who are not using hormonal contraceptives and evaluate the assessment methods used to identify MC disorders and MC-related symptoms.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Six databases were searched until September 2022 for all original research that reported the prevalence of MC disorders and/or MC-related symptoms in athletes not using hormonal contraceptives, which included the definitions of the MC disorders examined, and the assessment methods used. MC disorders included amenorrhoea, anovulation, dysmenorrhoea, heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), luteal phase deficiency (LPD), oligomenorrhoea, premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). MC-related symptoms included any affective and physical symptoms related to the MC that do not cause significant personal, interpersonal or functional impairment. The prevalence data across eligible studies were combined, and all studies were qualitatively synthesised to evaluate the assessment methods and tools used to identify MC disorders and MC-related symptoms. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using a modified Downs and Black checklist.
RESULTS
Sixty studies involving 6380 athletes were included. A wide range of prevalence was observed for all types of MC disorders, with a dearth of data on anovulation and LPD. Based on pooled data, dysmenorrhoea (32.3%; range 7.8-85.6%) was the most prevalent MC disorder. Studies reporting MC-related symptoms mostly examined the premenstrual and menstruation phases, where affective symptoms appeared more prevalent than physical symptoms. A larger proportion of athletes reported symptoms during the initial days of menstruation compared with the premenstrual phase. MC disorders and MC-related symptoms were retrospectively assessed using self-report methods in 90.0% of studies. Most studies (76.7%) in this review were graded as moderate quality.
DISCUSSION
MC disorders and MC-related symptoms are commonplace among female athletes, warranting further research examining their impact on performance and preventive/management strategies to optimise athlete health. To increase the quality of future studies, researchers should adopt standardised definitions of MC disorders and assessment methods such as a combination of calendar counting, urinary ovulation tests and a mid-luteal phase serum progesterone measurement when assessing menstrual function. Similarly, standardised diagnostic criteria should be used when examining MC disorders such as HMB, PMS and PMDD. Practically, implementing prospective cycle monitoring that includes ovulation testing, mid-luteal blood sampling (where feasible) and symptom logging throughout the MC could support athletes and practitioners to promptly identify and manage MC disorders and/or MC-related symptoms.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This review has been registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021268757).
Topics: Female; Humans; Dysmenorrhea; Prevalence; Prospective Studies; Anovulation; Retrospective Studies; Menstrual Cycle; Premenstrual Syndrome; Menstruation Disturbances; Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder; Athletes; Contraceptive Agents
PubMed: 37389782
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-023-01871-8 -
The Journal of International Medical... Jun 2020To assess the efficacy of herbal medicine (cinnamon/fennel/ginger) for treating primary dysmenorrhea. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of herbal medicine (cinnamon/fennel/ginger) for treating primary dysmenorrhea.
METHODS
Relevant studies were searched in multiple databases. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as the effect indicator for measurement data, and each effect size was given estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Nine studies with 647 patients were selected. Compared with the results in the control group, pain intensity was significantly relieved in the trial group when assessed by the intervention (cinnamon placebo: WMD = 1.815, 95% CI = 1.330-2.301; fennel placebo: WMD = 0.528, 95% CI = 0.119-6.829; ginger placebo: WMD = 2.902, 95% CI = 2.039-3.765), observation period (one cycle: WMD = 2.061, 95% CI = 0.815-3.307; one cycles: WMD = 1.831, 95% CI = 0.973-2.690), and study quality (high quality: WMD = 2.224, 95% CI = 1.488-2.960). Pain duration was significantly shorter in the trial group (cinnamon placebo: WMD = 16.200, 95% CI = 15.271-17.129). No publication bias was observed for either outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
For primary dysmenorrhea, cinnamon/fennel/ginger effectively reduced pain intensity, and cinnamon shortened the duration of pain. Further studies are needed to confirm our results.
Topics: Cinnamomum zeylanicum; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Foeniculum; Zingiber officinale; Herbal Medicine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32603204
DOI: 10.1177/0300060520936179 -
Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics &... Jan 2022Inguinal endometriosis is a very rare entity with uncertain pathophysiology, that poses several diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. This study aimed to summarize... (Review)
Review
Inguinal endometriosis is a very rare entity with uncertain pathophysiology, that poses several diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. This study aimed to summarize published literature on the diagnosis and treatment of this condition. Thus, a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. An effort was made to numerically analyze all parameters included in case reports and retrospective analyses, as well. The typical and atypical features of this condition, investigations used, type of treatment and histopathology were recorded. More specifications about the surgical treatment, such as operations previously performed, type of surgery and treatment after surgery have been acknowledged. Other sites of endometriosis, the presence of pelvic endometriosis and the follow-up and recurrence have been also documented. Overall, the search yielded 61 eligible studies including 133 cases of inguinal endometriosis. The typical clinical presentation includes a unilateral inguinal mass, with or without catamenial pain. Transabdominal or transvaginal ultrasound was typically used as the first line method of diagnosis. Groin incision and exploratory surgery was the treatment indicated by the majority of the authors, while excision of part of the round ligament was reported in about half of the cases. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy were initiated in cases of coexisting endometriosis-related neoplasia. Inguinal recurrence or malignant transformation was rarely reported. The treatment of inguinal endometriosis is surgical and a long-term follow-up is needed. More research is needed on the effectiveness of suppressive hormonal therapy, recurrence rate and its relationship with endometriosis-associated malignancies.
Topics: Endometriosis; Female; Groin; Humans; Inguinal Canal; Round Ligament of Uterus; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 35181041
DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2021.11.007 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Mar 2021Perineal trauma at the time of vaginal delivery is common, and when the anal sphincter is included, these injuries can be associated with additional morbidity including... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Perineal trauma at the time of vaginal delivery is common, and when the anal sphincter is included, these injuries can be associated with additional morbidity including incontinence, pelvic pain, and sexual dysfunction.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate whether a hands-on technique during vaginal delivery results in less incidence of perineal trauma than a hands-off technique.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched from their inception until June 2018. No restrictions for language or geographic location were applied. The reference lists of identified articles were examined to identify studies not captured by electronic searches. Randomized controlled trials comparing a hands-on technique of perineal support during vaginal delivery (i.e. intervention group) with a hands-off technique (i.e. control group) were included in the meta-analysis. Hands-on was defined as involving one hand on the fetal head, applying pressure to control expulsion, with the other hand applying pressure on the maternal perineum. The primary outcome was severe perineal trauma, defined as either third- or fourth-degree lacerations. The meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird, to produce summary treatment effects in terms of relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Five trials, including 7287 women, were analyzed. All studies included singleton gestations with cephalic presentation at term undergoing spontaneous vaginal delivery. Women randomized to the hands-on technique had similar incidence of severe perineal trauma (1.5 versus 1.3%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.56-7.15). There was no significant between-group difference in the incidence of intact perineum, first-, second- and fourth-degree laceration. Hands-on technique was associated with increased risk of third-degree lacerations (2.6 versus 0.7%; RR 3.41, 95% CI 1.39-8.37) and of episiotomy (13.6 versus 9.8%, RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.14-2.22) compared to the hands-off technique.
CONCLUSIONS
Hands-on technique during spontaneous vaginal delivery of singleton gestations results in similar incidence of several perineal traumas compared to a hands-off technique. The incidence of third-degree lacerations and of episiotomy increases with the hands-on technique. Key Message A hands-on technique during vaginal delivery results in similar incidence of severe lacerations compared to hands-off.
Topics: Delivery, Obstetric; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Lacerations; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31092083
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1619686 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Apr 2023Pelvic exenteration surgery can improve survival in people with advanced colorectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to review pain intensity and other outcomes, for... (Review)
Review
AIM
Pelvic exenteration surgery can improve survival in people with advanced colorectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to review pain intensity and other outcomes, for example the management of pain, the relationship between pain and the extent of surgery and the impact of pain on short-term outcomes.
METHOD
Electronic databases were searched from inception to 1 May 2021. We included interventional studies of adults with any indication for pelvic exenteration surgery that also reported pain outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-1.
RESULTS
The search found 21 studies that reported pain following pelvic exenteration [n = 1317 patients, mean age 58.4 years (SD 4.8)]. Ten studies were judged to be at moderate risk of bias. Before pelvic exenteration, pain was reported by 19%-100% of patients. Five studies used validated measures of pain intensity. No study measured pain at all three time points in the surgical journey. The presence of pain before surgery predicted postoperative adverse pain outcomes, and pain is more likely to be experienced in those who require wider resections, including bone resection.
CONCLUSION
Considering that pain following pelvic exenteration is commonly described by patients, the literature suggests that this symptom is not being measured and therefore addressed.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Middle Aged; Pelvic Exenteration; Pain Management; Colorectal Neoplasms; Pain, Postoperative; Retrospective Studies; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
PubMed: 36572393
DOI: 10.1111/codi.16462 -
Maturitas May 2023Endometriosis is a benign, estrogen-dependent, chronic inflammatory disease and is the commonest cause of chronic pelvic pain in younger women. Cardiovascular disease is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Endometriosis is a benign, estrogen-dependent, chronic inflammatory disease and is the commonest cause of chronic pelvic pain in younger women. Cardiovascular disease is the main cause of death worldwide. Because the relationship between endometriosis and CV disease is not well established, we performed a systematic review of longitudinal studies that assessed the occurrence of cardiovascular events in women with endometriosis compared to those without endometriosis.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort/nested case-control studies with endometriosis patients and controls. A search was conducted of the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase databases from inception to November 2022. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (95%CI).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
Cardiovascular outcomes such as ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease.
RESULTS
Six cohort studies were included, with a total of 254,929 participants. Meta-analysis showed that endometriosis was associated with a significantly increased risk of ischemic heart disease (HR 1.50, 95%CI 1.37-1.65; I = 0 %) and cerebrovascular disease (HR 1.17, 95%CI 1.07-1.29; I = 0 %). The one study that examined the relationship between cardiovascular mortality and endometriosis found a decreased risk in women with endometriosis relative to women without endometriosis (HR 0.55 (95%CI 0.47-0.65)).
CONCLUSIONS
Endometriosis is associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease, namely ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease. Further studies are required to determine if endometriosis and/or its treatments are risk factors (particularly for cardiovascular mortality), and whether preventive measures could reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease in women with endometriosis. Study protocol registered at PROSPERO: CRD42022298830.
Topics: Humans; Female; Cardiovascular Diseases; Endometriosis; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Myocardial Ischemia; Cohort Studies
PubMed: 37075537
DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2023.04.001 -
International Journal of Molecular... Oct 2022Endometriosis is defined as ectopic endometrial tissues dispersed outside the endometrium. This can cause disruption in hormonal and immunological processes, which may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Endometriosis is defined as ectopic endometrial tissues dispersed outside the endometrium. This can cause disruption in hormonal and immunological processes, which may increase susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Worsening of endometriosis symptoms may occur as a result of this infection. The aim of our review was to estimate the pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in endometriosis patients. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. MEDLINE, Science Direct, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases were searched, using the keywords: (endometriosis) AND (COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2). Forest plots and pooled estimates were created using the Open Meta Analyst software. After screening 474 articles, 19 studies met the eligibility criteria for the systematic review, and 15 studies were included in the meta-analyses. A total of 17,799 patients were analyzed. The pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in endometriosis patients was 7.5%. Pooled estimates for the health impacts were 47.2% for decreased access to medical care, 49.3% increase in dysmenorrhea, 75% increase in anxiety, 59.4% increase in depression, and 68.9% increase in fatigue. Endometriosis patients were undeniably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused the worsening of symptoms such as dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, anxiety, depression, and fatigue.
Topics: Female; Humans; COVID-19; Endometriosis; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics; Dysmenorrhea; Prevalence; Fatigue
PubMed: 36361745
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232112951 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 6 to 11% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 6 to 11% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment strategy is medical therapy with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) to reduce pain due to endometriosis. One of the adverse effects of GnRHas is a decreased bone mineral density. In addition to assessing the effect on pain, quality of life, most troublesome symptom and patients' satisfaction, the current review also evaluated the effect on bone mineral density and risk of adverse effects in women with endometriosis who use GnRHas versus other treatment options.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of GnRH analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of painful symptoms associated with endometriosis and to determine the effects of GnRHas on bone mineral density of women with endometriosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the trial registries in May 2022 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared GnRHas with other hormonal treatment options, including analgesics, danazol, intra-uterine progestogens, oral or injectable progestogens, gestrinone and also GnRHas compared with no treatment or placebo. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with add-back therapy (hormonal or non-hormonal) or calcium-regulation agents were also included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology as recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes are relief of overall pain and the objective measurement of bone mineral density. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, quality of life, improvement in the most troublesome symptoms and patient satisfaction. Due to high risk of bias associated with some of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of selection bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed.
MAIN RESULTS
Seventy-two studies involving 7355 patients were included. The evidence was very low to low quality: the main limitations of all studies were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Trials comparing GnRHas versus no treatment We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus placebo There may be a decrease in overall pain, reported as pelvic pain scores (RR 2.14; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.24, 1 RCT, n = 87, low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea scores (RR 2.25; 95% CI 1.59 to 3.16, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia scores (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.54, 1 RCT, n = 59, low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness scores (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.50, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. We are uncertain of the effect for pelvic induration, based on the results found after three months of treatment (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.79, 1 RCT, n = 81, low-certainty evidence). Besides, treatment with GnRHas may be associated with a greater incidence of hot flushes at three months of treatment (RR 3.08; 95% CI 1.89 to 5.01, 1 RCT, n = 100, low-certainty evidence). Trials comparing GnRHas versus danazol For overall pain, for women treated with either GnRHas or danazol, a subdivision was made between pelvic tenderness, partly resolved and completely resolved. We are uncertain about the effect on relief of overall pain, when a subdivision was made for overall pain (MD -0.30; 95% CI -1.66 to 1.06, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic pain (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.66, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.69, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.77 to 0.37, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic induration (MD -0.10; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.39, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.38, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. For pelvic pain (MD 0.50; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.90, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and pelvic induration (MD 0.70; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), the complaints may decrease slightly after treatment with GnRHas, compared to danazol, for six months of treatment. Trials comparing GnRHas versus analgesics We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus intra-uterine progestogens We did not identify any low risk of bias studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents There may be a slight decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) after 12 months treatment with GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents for anterior-posterior spine (MD -7.00; 95% CI -7.53 to -6.47, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and lateral spine (MD -12.40; 95% CI -13.31 to -11.49, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For relief of overall pain, there may be a slight decrease in favour of treatment with GnRHas compared to placebo or oral or injectable progestogens. We are uncertain about the effect when comparing GnRHas with danazol, intra-uterine progestogens or gestrinone. For BMD, there may be a slight decrease when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to gestrinone. There was a bigger decrease of BMD in favour of GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents. However, there may be a slight increase in adverse effects when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to placebo or gestrinone. Due to a very low to low certainty of the evidence, a wide range of outcome measures and a wide range of outcome measurement instruments, the results should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Female; Humans; Endometriosis; Danazol; Progestins; Gestrinone; Dysmenorrhea; Calcium; Dyspareunia; Pelvic Pain; Calcium, Dietary; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone
PubMed: 37341141
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014788.pub2