-
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2022The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is the comparison of endotracheal intubation and suctioning to immediate resuscitation without intubation of... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is the comparison of endotracheal intubation and suctioning to immediate resuscitation without intubation of non-vigorous infants > 34 weeks’ gestation delivered through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF). Randomized, non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Data sources were PubMed/Medline and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, from 2012 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were non-vigorous infants born through MSAF with gestational age > 34 weeks and sample size ≥ 5. We calculated overall relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to determine the impact of endotracheal suction (ETS) in non-vigorous infants born through MSAF. The outcomes presented are the incidence of neonatal mortality, meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS), transient tachypnea, need for positive pressure ventilation, respiratory support, persistent pulmonary hypertension treatment, neonatal infection, ischemic encephalopathy, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and the duration of hospitalization between ETS and non-ETS group. Six studies with a total sample of 1026 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Statistically non-significant difference was observed in RR between two groups with regards to mortality (1.22, 95% CI 0.73−2.04), occurrence of MAS (1.08, 95% CI 0.76−1.53) and other outcomes, and MD in hospitalization duration. There is no sufficient evidence to suggest initiating endotracheal suction soon after birth in non-vigorous meconium-stained infants as routine.
PubMed: 35453929
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12040881 -
Translational Andrology and Urology Jan 2022With advances in medicine, there have been more and more ways to treat renal calculi in recent years. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a safe and effective...
BACKGROUND
With advances in medicine, there have been more and more ways to treat renal calculi in recent years. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a safe and effective treatment. The purpose of this paper is to study the efficacy and safety of PCNL combined with negative pressure suction in the treatment of renal calculi by meta-analysis.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese Journal Full-Text Database, VIP, Wanfang Science and Technology Journal Full-Text Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Search databases were searched for articles related to the efficacy and safety of PCNL combined with negative pressure suction in the treatment of renal calculi from the establishment of the databases to October 2021. Endnote X9 software was first used to check and eliminate the articles, and the quality of the included articles were evaluated according to the risk of bias tool of Cochrane Collaboration. Stata 15.1 software was used to record the data. A meta-analysis was performed on the stone clearance rate, operation time, postoperative complications, postoperative fever, septic shock, intrapelvic pressure, and blood loss of PCNL combined with negative pressure suction in the treatment of renal calculi. The reliability of the results was assessed by a sensitivity analysis. Egger's linear test was used to test the publication bias of the articles.
RESULTS
A total of 10 articles were included in the meta-analysis, and the total sample size of the study was 820. The meta-analysis showed that when PCNL combined with negative pressure suction was used to treat renal calculi, the stone clearance rate and the occurrence of septic shock of the test group did not differ significantly from that of the control group; the incidence rate of postoperative complications、the operation time, the intraoperative bleeding and the postoperative fever of the test group was significantly better than that of the control group.
DISCUSSION
Compared to the group without negative pressure, PCNL reduces the operation time, postoperative complications, postoperative fever, septic shock, and intraoperative blood loss without increasing the risk of septic shock.
PubMed: 35242643
DOI: 10.21037/tau-21-1067 -
Respiratory Care Feb 2022Artificial airway suctioning is a key component of airway management and a core skill for clinicians charged with assuring airway patency. Suctioning of the artificial...
Artificial airway suctioning is a key component of airway management and a core skill for clinicians charged with assuring airway patency. Suctioning of the artificial airway is a common procedure performed worldwide on a daily basis. As such, it is imperative that clinicians are familiar with the most-effective and efficient methods to perform the procedure. We conducted a systematic review to assist in the development of evidence-based recommendations that pertain to the care of patients with artificial airways. From our systematic review, we developed guidelines and recommendations that addressed questions related to the indications, complications, timing, duration, and methods of artificial airway suctioning. By using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, the following recommendations for suctioning were developed for neonatal, pediatric, and adult patients with an artificial airway: (1) breath sounds, visual secretions in the artificial airway, and a sawtooth pattern on the ventilator waveform are indicators for suctioning pediatric and adult patients, and an acute increase in airway resistance may be an indicator for suctioning in neonates; (2) as-needed only, rather than scheduled, suctioning is sufficient for neonatal and pediatric patients; (3) both closed and open suction systems may be used to safely and effectively remove secretions from the artificial airway of adult patients; (4) preoxygenation should be performed before suctioning in pediatric and adult patients; (5) the use of normal saline solution should generally be avoided during suctioning; (6) during open suctioning, sterile technique should be used; (7) suction catheters should occlude < 70% of the endotracheal tube lumen in neonates and < 50% in pediatric and adult patients, and suction pressure should be kept below -120 mm Hg in neonatal and pediatric patients and -200 mm Hg in adult patients; (8) suction should be applied for a maximum of 15 s per suctioning procedure; (9) deep suctioning should only be used when shallow suctioning is ineffective; (10) routine bronchoscopy for secretion removal is not recommended; and (11) devices used to clear endotracheal tubes may be used when airway resistance is increased due to secretion accumulation.
Topics: Adult; Airway Management; Child; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intubation, Intratracheal; Respiration, Artificial; Suction; Ventilators, Mechanical
PubMed: 35078900
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.09548 -
Urology Journal Dec 2021The suctioning access sheath (SAS) is a novel access sheath connected to a negative pressure suction device and absorbs fragments. Some comparative studies have reported... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The suctioning access sheath (SAS) is a novel access sheath connected to a negative pressure suction device and absorbs fragments. Some comparative studies have reported SAS with a higher stone-free rate and lower operative time. However, no higher-level evidence was published to support SAS. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the clinical safety and efficacy of SAS versus traditional access sheath (TAS) for the treatment of renal stones in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted using Pubmed, Embase(Ovid), Medline(EBSCO), Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and Sinomed to search comparative studies as recent as December 2020 that assessed the safety and effectiveness of SAS in PCNL. The quality of retrospective case-control studies (RCCs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Cochrane risk of bias tool, respectively. The Oxford center set up evidence-based medicine was used to assess the level of evidence (LE). Statistical analyses were performed by the comprehensive meta-analysis program.
RESULTS
Seven studies, with a total of 1655 patients, were included. Compared with the TAS group, the SAS group had a shorter operative time (MD= -17.30; 95%CI:-23.09,-11.51; P<.00001), higher stone-free rate (OR=2.37;95%CI:1.56,3.61;P<.0001), fewer total complication rate (OR=0.50;95%CI:0.35,0.70;P<.0001), lower auxiliary procedures rate (OR=0.48;95%CI:0.36,0.64; P<.00001), and lower postoperative fever rate (OR=0.46;95%CI:0.34,0.62;P<.00001).
CONCLUSION
The SAS can significantly improve MPCNL in the stone-free rate, operative time, and total complication rate, especially for auxiliary procedures and postoperative fever rates.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Calculi; Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous; Operative Time; Suction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34866174
DOI: 10.22037/uj.v18i.6773 -
BioMed Research International 2021Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a severe musculoskeletal complication in orthopedic trauma surgery, causing challenges in bony and soft tissue management. Currently,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a severe musculoskeletal complication in orthopedic trauma surgery, causing challenges in bony and soft tissue management. Currently, negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is often used as temporary coverage for traumatic and surgical wounds, also in cases of FRI. However, controversy exists about the impact of NPWT on the outcome in FRI, specifically on infection recurrence. Therefore, this systematic review qualitatively assesses the literature on the role of NPWT in the management of FRI.
METHODS
A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science database was performed. Studies that reported on infection recurrence related to FRI management combined with NPWT were eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment was done using the PRISMA statement and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.
RESULTS
After screening and quality assessment of 775 unique identified records, eight articles could be included for qualitative synthesis. All eight studies reported on infection recurrence, which ranged from 2.8% to 34.9%. Six studies described wound healing time, varying from two to seven weeks. Four studies took repeated microbial swabs during subsequent vacuum dressing changes. One study reported newly detected pathogens in 23% of the included patients, and three studies did not find new pathogens.
CONCLUSION
This review provides an assessment of current literature on the role of NPWT in the management of soft tissue defects in patients with FRI. Due to the lack of uniformity in included studies, conclusions should be drawn with caution. Currently, there is no clear scientific evidence to support the use of NPWT as definitive treatment in FRI. At this stage, we can only recommend early soft tissue coverage (within days) with a local or free flap. NPWT may be safe for a few days as temporarily soft tissue coverage until definitive soft tissue management could be performed. However, comparative studies between NPWT and early wound closure in FRI patients are needed.
Topics: Bandages; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Orthopedic Procedures; Suction; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Treatment Outcome; Vacuum; Wound Healing
PubMed: 34722772
DOI: 10.1155/2021/7742227 -
Clinical Otolaryngology : Official... Nov 2021As we pass the anniversary of the declaration of a global pandemic by the World Health Organisation, it invites us to reflect upon the inescapable changes that...
One year into the COVID-19 pandemic: What do we know so far from studies assessing risk and mitigation of droplet aerosolisation during endonasal surgery? A systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
As we pass the anniversary of the declaration of a global pandemic by the World Health Organisation, it invites us to reflect upon the inescapable changes that coronavirus has wrought upon ENT and, in particular, rhinological practice. As it remains unclear when we will emerge from the shadow of COVID-19, a critical analysis of the evidence base on both the assessment and mitigation of risk is vital for ENT departments worldwide. This article presents a systematic review of the literature examining articles which consider either the quantification of risk or strategies to mitigate risk specifically in the setting of rhinological surgery.
DESIGN
Systematic literature review.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded a total of 3406 returns with 24 articles meeting eligibility criteria. A narrative synthesis stratified results into two broad themes: (1) those which made an assessment as to the aerosolisation of droplets during sinus surgery, further sub-divided into work which considered macroscopically visible droplets and that which considered smaller particles; (2) and those studies which examined the mitigation of this risk.
CONCLUSION
Studies considering the aerosolisation of both droplets and smaller particles suggest endonasal surgery carries significant risk. While results both highlight a range of innovative adjunctive strategies and support suction as an important intervention to reduce aerosolisation, appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) should be considered mandatory for all healthcare professionals involved in rhinological surgery. Studies have demonstrated that close adherence to PPE use is effective in preventing COVID-19 infection.
Topics: Aerosols; COVID-19; Humans; Infection Control; Nose Diseases; Operating Rooms; Pandemics; Particle Size; Personal Protective Equipment; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34473910
DOI: 10.1111/coa.13854 -
Scientific Reports Jul 2021Numerous supraglottic airway device (SADs) have been designed for adults; however, their relative efficacy, indicated by parameters such as adequacy of sealing, ease of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Numerous supraglottic airway device (SADs) have been designed for adults; however, their relative efficacy, indicated by parameters such as adequacy of sealing, ease of application, and postinsertion complications, remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of various SADs. We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials comparing at least two types of SADs published before December 2019. The primary outcomes were oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), risk of first-attempt insertion failure, and postoperative sore throat rate (POST). We included 108 studies (n = 10,645) comparing 17 types of SAD. The Proseal laryngeal mask airway (LMA), the I-gel supraglottic airway, the Supreme LMA, the Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway, the SoftSeal, the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway, the Air-Q, the Laryngeal Tube, the Laryngeal Tube Suction II, the Laryngeal Tube Suction Disposable, AuraGain, and Protector had significantly higher OLP (mean difference ranging from 3.98 to 9.18 cmHO) compared with that of a classic LMA (C-LMA). The Protector exhibited the highest OLP and was ranked first. All SADs had a similar likelihood of first-attempt insertion failure and POST compared with the C-LMA. Our findings indicate that the Protector may be the best SAD because it has the highest OLP.Systematic review registration PROSPERO: CRD42017065273.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Humans; Laryngeal Masks; Network Meta-Analysis; Oropharynx; Pharyngitis; Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34301986
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94114-7 -
Endoscopic Ultrasound 2021The optimal sampling techniques for EUS-FNA remain unclear and have not been standardized. To improve diagnostic accuracy, suction techniques for EUS-FNA have been... (Review)
Review
The optimal sampling techniques for EUS-FNA remain unclear and have not been standardized. To improve diagnostic accuracy, suction techniques for EUS-FNA have been developed and are widely used among endoscopists. The aim of this study was to compare wet-suction and dry-suction EUS-FNA techniques for sampling solid lesions. We performed a comprehensive literature search of major databases (from inception to June 2020) to identify prospective studies comparing wet-suction EUS-FNA and dry-suction EUS-FNA. Specimen adequacy, sample contamination, and histologic accuracy were assessed by pooling data using a random-effects model expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Six studies including a total of 418 patients (365 wet suction vs. 377 dry suction) were included in our final analysis. The study included a total of 535 lesions (332 pancreatic lesions and 203 nonpancreatic lesions). The pooled odds of sample adequacy was 3.18 (CI: 1.82-5.54, P = 0.001) comparing wet- and dry-suction cohorts. The pooled odds of blood contamination was 1.18 (CI: 0.75-1.86, P = 0.1). The pooled rate for blood contamination was 58.33% (CI: 53.65%-62.90%) in the wet-suction cohort and 54.60% (CI 49.90%- 59.24%) in the dry-suction cohort (P = 0.256). The pooled odds of histological diagnosis was 3.68 (CI 0.82-16.42, P = 0.1). Very few adverse events were observed and did not have an impact on patient outcomes using either method. EUS-FNA using the wet-suction technique offers higher specimen quality through comparable rates of blood contamination and histological accuracy compared to dry-suction EUS-FNA.
PubMed: 34259217
DOI: 10.4103/EUS-D-20-00198 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) are at risk of developing meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). Neonates who are non-vigorous due to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) are at risk of developing meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). Neonates who are non-vigorous due to intrapartum asphyxia are at higher risk of developing MAS. Clearance of meconium from the airways below the vocal cords by tracheal suction before initiating other steps of resuscitation may reduce the risk of development of MAS. However, conducting tracheal suction may not only be ineffective, it may also delay effective resuscitation, thus prolonging and worsening the hypoxic-ischaemic insult. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of tracheal suctioning at birth in preventing meconium aspiration syndrome and other complications among non-vigorous neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R) (1946 to 25 November 2020) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for RCTs and quasi-randomised trials (up to November 2020).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies enrolling non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF, if the intervention being tested included tracheal suction at the time of birth with an intent to clear the trachea of meconium before regular breathing efforts began. Tracheal suction could be performed with an endotracheal tube or a wide-gauge suction catheter. Neonates in the control group should have been resuscitated at birth with no effort made to clear the trachea of meconium.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, consulting with a third review author about any disagreements. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including assessment of risk of bias for all studies. Our primary outcomes were: MAS; all-cause neonatal mortality; and incidence of hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE). Secondary outcomes included: need for mechanical ventilation; incidence of pulmonary air leaks; culture-positive sepsis; and persistent pulmonary hypertension. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies (enrolling 581 neonates) in the review. All four studies were conducted in tertiary care hospitals in India. Three of the four studies included neonates born at and beyond term gestation, whereas one included neonates born at and beyond 34 weeks of gestation. Due to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind the healthcare personnel conducting the intervention. Tracheal suction compared to no suction in non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF In non-vigorous infants, no differences were noted in the risks of MAS (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.08; 4 studies, 581 neonates) or all-cause neonatal mortality (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.02; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07; 4 studies, 575 neonates) with or without tracheal suctioning. No differences were reported in the risk of any severity HIE (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.63; 1 study, 175 neonates) or moderate to severe HIE (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; 1 study, 152 neonates) among non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF. We are also uncertain as to the effect of tracheal suction on other outcomes such as incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 4 studies, 581 neonates), pulmonary air leaks (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.93; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; 3 studies, 449 neonates), persistent pulmonary hypertension (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.77; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06; 3 studies, 406 neonates) and culture-positive sepsis (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.57; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 3 studies, 406 neonates). All reported outcomes were judged as providing very low certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain about the effect of tracheal suction on the incidence of MAS and its complications among non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF. One study awaits classification and could not be included in the review. More research from well-conducted large trials is needed to conclusively answer the review question.
Topics: Amniotic Fluid; Bias; Bronchodilator Agents; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Cause of Death; Confidence Intervals; Epinephrine; Humans; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Hypoxia-Ischemia, Brain; Incidence; India; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Intubation, Intratracheal; Meconium Aspiration Syndrome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Sepsis; Suction; Trachea
PubMed: 34133025
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012671.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by both metabolic and reproductive disorders, and affects 5% to 15% of women of reproductive age. Different western... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by both metabolic and reproductive disorders, and affects 5% to 15% of women of reproductive age. Different western medicines have been proposed for PCOS-related subfertility, such as oral contraceptives, insulin sensitisers and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD). Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) have also been used for subfertility caused by PCOS for decades, and are expected to become an alternative treatment for subfertile women with PCOS.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and six other databases, from inception to 2 June 2020. In addition, we searched three trials registries, the reference lists of included trials and contacted experts in the field to locate trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CHM versus placebo, no treatment or conventional (western) therapies for the treatment of subfertile women with PCOS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information. We conducted meta-analyses. We used the odds ratios (ORs) to report dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with 609 participants. The comparisons in the included trials were as follows: CHM versus clomiphene, CHM plus clomiphene versus clomiphene (with or without ethinyloestradiol cyproterone acetate (EE/CPA)), CHM plus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction versus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction alone, and CHM plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) versus LOD alone. The overall certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was very low. None of the included studies reported the primary outcome, live birth rate. Most studies reported the secondary outcomes, and only one study reported data on adverse events. In trials that compared CHM to clomiphene (with or without LOD in both study arms), we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 3.19; I = 28%; 3 studies, 140 participants; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 21.5%, the chance following CHM would vary between 14.7% and 46.7%. No study reported data on adverse events. When CHM plus clomiphene was compared to clomiphene (with or without EE/CPA), there was low certainty evidence of a higher pregnancy rate in the CHM plus clomiphene group (OR 3.06, 95% CI 2.05 to 4.55; I = 10%; 6 studies, 470 participants; low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 31.5%, the chance following CHM plus clomiphene would vary between 48.5% and 67.7%. No data were reported on adverse events. In trials that compared CHM plus follicle aspiration and ovulation induction to follicle aspiration and ovulation induction alone, we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.68; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction is assumed to be 29.2%, the chance following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would vary between 15.9% and 70%. Reported adverse events included severe luteinised unruptured follicle syndrome (LUFS) (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 8.19; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence) or multiple pregnancy (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). These results suggest that if the chances of LUFS, OHSS, and multiple pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction are assumed to be 8.3%, 4.2%, and 8.3% respectively, the chances following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would be 0.5% to 35.8%, 0% to 26.3% and 0.5% to 35.8% respectively. In trials that compared CHM plus LOD to LOD alone, we are uncertain if CHM improves pregnancy rates (OR 3.50, 95% CI 0.72 to 17.09; 1 study, 30 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following LOD is assumed to be 40%, the chance following CHM with LOD would vary between 32.4% and 91.9%. No data were reported on adverse events. We are uncertain of the results in the comparison groups for all outcomes. The certainty of the evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes was very low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or adverse events, failure to describe study methods in adequate detail and imprecision due to very low event rates and wide CIs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support the use of CHM for subfertile women with PCOS. No data are available on live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates for there is no consistent evidence to indicate that CHM influences fertility outcomes. However, we find that the addition of CHM to clomiphene may improve pregnancy rates, but there is very limited, low certainty evidence for this outcome. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence on adverse effects to indicate whether CHM is safe. In the future, well-designed, carefully conducted RCTs are needed, with a particular focus on the live birth rate and other safety indexes.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Clomiphene; Cyproterone Acetate; Drug Combinations; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Ethinyl Estradiol; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Laparoscopy; Ovulation Induction; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suction; Young Adult
PubMed: 34085287
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007535.pub4