-
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 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2011Dysmenorrhoea may begin soon after the menarche, after which it often improves with age, or it may originate later in life after the onset of an underlying causative... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Dysmenorrhoea may begin soon after the menarche, after which it often improves with age, or it may originate later in life after the onset of an underlying causative condition. Dysmenorrhoea is common, and in up to 20% of women it may be severe enough to interfere with daily activities.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for primary dysmenorrhoea? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to January 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 35 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupressure, acupuncture, aspirin, behavioural interventions, contraceptives (combined oral), fish oil, herbal remedies, magnets, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, progestogens (intrauterine), spinal manipulation, surgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways, thiamine, toki-shakuyaku-san, topical heat, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), vitamin B12, and vitamin E.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Chronic Disease; Denervation; Dysmenorrhea; Humans; Progestins; Thiamine
PubMed: 21718556
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and... Aug 2022This study aims to assess whether antibiotic therapy for chronic endometritis (CE) could improve subsequent IVF outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Does antibiotic therapy for chronic endometritis improve clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent implantation failure in subsequent IVF cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
This study aims to assess whether antibiotic therapy for chronic endometritis (CE) could improve subsequent IVF outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF).
METHODS
Studies that explore CE treatment in patients with RIF were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Wanfang, and Google Scholar up to Jan 31, 2022. All retrieved studies were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main outcome measures include implantation rate (IR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (OPR/LBR), and miscarriage rate (MR). Odds ratios (ORs) were analyzed for pregnancy outcomes with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Nine articles were enrolled in this study. Patients receiving oral antibiotic administration (OAA) did not show any advantage over patients without CE with regard to IR, OPR/LBR, and MR, but they showed a higher CPR. Patients with cured CE after OAA therapy had significantly higher CPR, IR, and OPR/LBR compared with patients without CE. Patients with persistent CE after OAA therapy had significantly lower IR, CPR, and OPR/LBR compared with patients without CE. Patients with cured CE had significantly higher IR, CPR, and OPR/LBR compared with persistent CE patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic treatment may improve the pregnancy outcomes of RIF patients in subsequent IVF cycles only if the condition of CE is confirmed cured in a control biopsy afterwards. Otherwise, no sufficient evidence has shown improvements in clinical outcomes in RIF patients with persistent CE.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Disease; Embryo Implantation; Endometritis; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate
PubMed: 35829835
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02558-1 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2011Chronic prostatitis can cause pain and urinary symptoms, and usually occurs without positive bacterial cultures from prostatic secretions (known as chronic abacterial... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Chronic prostatitis can cause pain and urinary symptoms, and usually occurs without positive bacterial cultures from prostatic secretions (known as chronic abacterial prostatitis or chronic pelvic pain syndrome [CP/CPPS]). Bacterial infection can result from urinary tract instrumentation, but the cause and natural history of CP/CPPS are unknown.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for chronic bacterial prostatitis? What are the effects of treatments for chronic abacterial prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 33 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: 5 alpha-reductase inhibitors, allopurinol, alpha-blockers, biofeedback, local injections of antimicrobial drugs, mepartricin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), oral antimicrobial drugs, pentosan polysulfate, prostatic massage, quercetin, radical prostatectomy, sitz baths, transurethral microwave thermotherapy, and transurethral resection.
Topics: 5-alpha Reductase Inhibitors; Chronic Disease; Humans; Male; Mepartricin; Pentosan Sulfuric Polyester; Prostatitis; Quercetin
PubMed: 21736764
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is an infection that affects 4% to 12% of young women, and is one of the most common causes of morbidity in this age group. The main... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is an infection that affects 4% to 12% of young women, and is one of the most common causes of morbidity in this age group. The main intervention for acute PID is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics which cover Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and anaerobic bacteria, administered intravenously, intramuscularly, or orally. In this review, we assessed the optimal treatment regimen for PID.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic regimens used to treat pelvic inflammatory disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Review Group's Specialized Register, which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1944 to 2016, located through electronic searching and handsearching; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid platform (1991 to July 2016); MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016); Embase (1947 to July 2016); LILACS, iAHx interface (1982 to July 2016); World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (July 2016); Web of Science (2001 to July 2016); OpenGrey (1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, and 1997); and abstracts in selected publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing the use of antibiotics with placebo or other antibiotics for the treatment of PID in women of reproductive age, either as inpatient or outpatient treatment. We limited our review to comparison of drugs in current use that are recommended for consideration by the 2015 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for treatment of PID.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a fourth review author if necessary. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria, classifying it as high, moderate, low, or very low. We calculated Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RR), using either random-effects or fixed-effect models and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome or for an additional harmful outcome, with their 95% confidence interval (CI), to measure the effect of the treatments. We conducted sensitivity analyses limited to studies at low risk of bias, for comparisons where such studies were available.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 37 RCTs (6348 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to high, the main limitations being serious risk of bias (due to poor reporting of study methods and lack of blinding), serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision. Azithromycin versus doxycyclineThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the two drugs in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.55, I = 72%, 2 RCTs, 243 women, very low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05, 1 RCT, 309 women, low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.34, 3 RCTs, 552 women, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis limited to a single study at low risk of bias, azithromycin was superior to doxycycline in achieving cure in mild-moderate PID (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.67, 133 women, moderate-quality evidence). Quinolone versus cephalosporinThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the two drugs in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.10, 3 RCTs, 459 women, I = 5%, low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.23, 2 RCTs, 313 women, I = 7%, low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 2.24, 95% CI 0.52 to 9.72, 5 RCTs, 772 women, I = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Nitroimidazole versus no use of nitroimidazoleThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the nitroimidazoles (metronidazole) group and the group receiving other drugs with activity over anaerobes (e.g. amoxicillin-clavulanate) in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10, 5 RCTs, 2427 women, I = 60%, moderate-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01, 11 RCTs, 1383 women, I = 0%, moderate-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.59; participants = 3788; studies = 16; I = 0% , low-quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis limited to studies at low risk of bias, findings did not differ substantially from the main analysis (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.15, 2 RCTs, 1201 women, I = 32%, high-quality evidence). Clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus quinoloneThere was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.13, 1 RCT, 25 women, very low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19, 2 studies, 151 women, I = 0%, low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.72, 3 RCTs, 163 women, very low-quality evidence). Clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus cephalosporinThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the two groups in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09, 2 RCTs, 150 women, I = 0%, low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06, 10 RCTs, 959 women, I = 21%, moderate-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.42, 10 RCTs, 1172 women, I = 0%, very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no conclusive evidence that one regimen of antibiotics was safer or more effective than any other for the cure of PID, and there was no clear evidence for the use of nitroimidazoles (metronidazole) compared to use of other drugs with activity over anaerobes. Moderate-quality evidence from a single study at low risk of bias suggested that a macrolide (azithromycin) may be more effective than a tetracycline (doxycycline) for curing mild-moderate PID. Our review considered only the drugs that are currently used and mentioned by the CDC.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Cephalosporins; Clindamycin; Doxycycline; Female; Humans; Nitroimidazoles; Pelvic Inflammatory Disease; Publication Bias; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28436019
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010285.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020The risk of maternal mortality and morbidity is higher after caesarean section than for vaginal birth. With increasing rates of caesarean section, it is important to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The risk of maternal mortality and morbidity is higher after caesarean section than for vaginal birth. With increasing rates of caesarean section, it is important to minimise risks to the mother as much as possible. This review focused on different skin preparations to prevent infection. This is an update of a review last published in 2018.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of different antiseptic agents, different methods of application, or different forms of antiseptic used for preoperative skin preparation for preventing postcaesarean infection.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials, evaluating any type of preoperative skin preparation (agents, methods or forms). We included studies presented only as abstracts, if there was enough information to assess risk of bias. Comparisons of interest in this review were between: different antiseptic agents (e.g. alcohol, povidone iodine), different methods of antiseptic application (e.g. scrub, paint, drape), different forms of antiseptic (e.g. powder, liquid), and also between different packages of skin preparation including a mix of agents and methods, such as a plastic incisional drape, which may or may not be impregnated with antiseptic agents. We mainly focused on the comparison between different agents, with and without the use of drapes. Only studies involving the preparation of the incision area were included. This review did not cover studies of preoperative handwashing by the surgical team or preoperative bathing.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed all potential studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, extracted the data and checked data for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 individually-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with a total of 6938 women who were undergoing caesarean section. Twelve trials (6916 women) contributed data to this review. The trial dates ranged from 1983 to 2016. Six trials were conducted in the USA, and the remainder in India, Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, France, Denmark, and Indonesia. The included studies were broadly at low risk of bias for most domains, although high risk of detection bias raised some specific concerns in a number of studies. Length of stay was only reported in one comparison. Antiseptic agents Parachlorometaxylenol with iodine versus iodine alone We are uncertain whether parachlorometaxylenol with iodine made any difference to the incidence of surgical site infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.99; 1 trial, 50 women), or endometritis (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; 1 trial, 50 women) when compared with iodine alone, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Adverse events (maternal or neonatal) were not reported. Chlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone iodine Moderate-certainty evidence suggested that chlorhexidine gluconate, when compared with povidone iodine, probably slightly reduces the incidence of surgical site infection (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91; 8 trials, 4323 women). This effect was still present in a sensitivity analysis after removing four trials at high risk of bias for outcome assessment (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.23; 4 trials, 2037 women). Low-certainty evidence indicated that chlorhexidine gluconate, when compared with povidone iodine, may make little or no difference to the incidence of endometritis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.86; 3 trials, 2484 women). It is uncertain whether chlorhexidine gluconate reduces maternal skin irritation or allergic skin reaction (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.46; 3 trials, 1926 women; very low certainty evidence). One small study (60 women) reported reduced bacterial growth at 18 hours after caesarean section for women who had chlorhexidine gluconate preparation compared with women who had povidone iodine preparation (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.70). Methods Drape versus no drape This comparison investigated the use of drape versus no drape, following preparation of the skin with antiseptics. Low-certainty evidence suggested that using a drape before surgery compared with no drape, may make little or no difference to the incidence of surgical site infection (RR 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.71; 3 trials, 1373 women), and probably makes little or no difference to the length of stay in the hospital (mean difference (MD) 0.10 days, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.46; 1 trial, 603 women; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial compared an alcohol scrub and iodophor drape with a five-minute iodophor scrub only, and reported no surgical site infection in either group (79 women, very-low certainty evidence). We were uncertain whether the combination of a one-minute alcohol scrub and a drape reduced the incidence of metritis when compared with a five-minute scrub, because the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 9.16; 1 trial, 79 women). The studies did not report on adverse events (maternal or neonatal).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that preparing the skin with chlorhexidine gluconate before caesarean section is probably slightly more effective at reducing the incidence of surgical site infection in comparison to povidone iodine. For other outcomes examined there was insufficient evidence available from the included RCTs. Most of the evidence in this review was deemed to be very low or low certainty. This means that for most findings, our confidence in any evidence of an intervention effect is limited, and indicates the need for more high-quality research. Therefore, it is not yet clear what sort of skin preparation may be most effective for preventing postcaesarean surgical site infection, or for reducing other undesirable outcomes for mother and baby. Well-designed RCTs, with larger sample sizes are needed. High-priority questions include comparing types of antiseptic (especially iodine versus chlorhexidine), and application methods (scrubbing, swabbing, or draping). We found two studies that are ongoing; we will incorporate the results of these studies in future updates of this review.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bandages; Cesarean Section; Chlorhexidine; Endometritis; Ethanol; Female; Humans; Iodine; Iodophors; Length of Stay; Povidone-Iodine; Pregnancy; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Drapes; Surgical Wound Infection; Xylenes
PubMed: 32580252
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007462.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Cesarean delivery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed by obstetricians. Infectious morbidity after cesarean delivery can have a tremendous impact on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cesarean delivery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed by obstetricians. Infectious morbidity after cesarean delivery can have a tremendous impact on the postpartum woman's return to normal function and her ability to care for her baby. Despite the widespread use of prophylactic antibiotics, postoperative infectious morbidity still complicates cesarean deliveries. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010 and subsequently updated in 2012, twice in 2014, in 2017 and 2018.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if cleansing the vagina with an antiseptic solution before a cesarean delivery decreases the risk of maternal infectious morbidities, including endometritis and wound complications. We also assessed the side effects of vaginal cleansing solutions to determine adverse events associated with the intervention.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the impact of vaginal cleansing immediately before cesarean delivery with any type of antiseptic solution versus a placebo solution/standard of care on post-cesarean infectious morbidity. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion, but we did not identify any. We excluded trials that utilized vaginal preparation during labor or that did not use antibiotic surgical prophylaxis. We also excluded any trials using a cross-over design. We included trials published in abstract form only if sufficient information was present in the abstract on methods and outcomes to analyze.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least three of the review authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies. Two review authors were assigned to extract study characteristics, quality assessments, and data from eligible studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 trials, reporting results for 7038 women evaluating the effects of vaginal cleansing (17 using povidone-iodine, 3 chlorhexidine, 1 benzalkonium chloride) on post-cesarean infectious morbidity. Trials used vaginal preparations administered by sponge sticks, douches, or soaked gauze wipes. The control groups were typically no vaginal preparation (17 trials) or the use of a saline vaginal preparation (4 trials). One trial did not report on any outcomes of interest. Trials were performed in 10 different countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Thailand, Turkey, USA, Egypt, UK, Kenya and India). The overall risk of bias was low for areas of attrition, reporting, and other bias. About half of the trials had low risk of selection bias, with most of the remainder rated as unclear. Due to lack of blinding, we rated performance bias as high risk in nearly one-third of the trials, low risk in one-third, and unclear in one-third. Vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution immediately before cesarean delivery probably reduces the incidence of post-cesarean endometritis from 7.1% in control groups to 3.1% in vaginal cleansing groups (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.58; 20 trials, 6918 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This reduction in endometritis was seen for both iodine-based solutions and chlorhexidine-based solutions. Risks of postoperative fever and postoperative wound infection are also probably reduced by vaginal antiseptic preparation (fever: aRR 0.64, 0.50 to 0.82; 16 trials, 6163 women; and wound infection: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.77; 18 trials, 6385 women; both moderate-certainty evidence). Two trials found that there may be a lower risk of a composite outcome of wound complication or endometritis in women receiving preoperative vaginal preparation (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.82; 2 trials, 499 women; low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported with either the povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine vaginal cleansing. Subgroup analysis suggested a greater effect with vaginal preparations for those women in labour versus those not in labour for four out of five outcomes examined (post-cesarean endometritis; postoperative fever; postoperative wound infection; composite wound complication or endometritis). This apparent difference needs to be investigated further in future trials. We did not observe any subgroup differences between women with ruptured membranes and women with intact membranes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Vaginal preparation with povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine solution compared to saline or not cleansing immediately before cesarean delivery probably reduces the risk of post-cesarean endometritis, postoperative fever, and postoperative wound infection. Subgroup analysis found that these benefits were typically present whether iodine-based or chlorhexidine-based solutions were used and when women were in labor before the cesarean. The suggested benefit in women in labor needs further investigation in future trials. There was moderate-certainty evidence using GRADE for all reported outcomes, with downgrading decisions based on limitations in study design or imprecision. As a simple intervention, providers may consider implementing preoperative vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine before performing cesarean deliveries. Future research on this intervention being incorporated into bundles of care plans for women receiving cesarean delivery will be needed.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Benzalkonium Compounds; Cesarean Section; Chlorhexidine; Disinfection; Endometritis; Female; Fever; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Pregnancy; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 32335895
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007892.pub7 -
PloS One 2021To review the effect of different intramuscular injection (IMI) techniques on injection associated pain, in adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To review the effect of different intramuscular injection (IMI) techniques on injection associated pain, in adults.
METHODS
The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019136097). MEDLINE, EMBASE, British Nursing Index and CINAHL were searched up to June 2020. Included studies were appraised and a meta-analysis, where appropriate, was conducted with a random effects model and test for heterogeneity. Standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval in reported injection pain (intervention cf. control) was reported.
RESULTS
29 studies were included in the systematic review and 20 studies in the meta-analysis. 13 IMI techniques were identified. 10 studies applied local pressure to the injection site. Of these, applying manual pressure (4 studies, SMD = -0.85[-1.36,-0.33]) and Helfer (rhythmic) tapping (3 studies, SMD = -2.95[-5.51,-0.39]) to the injection site reduced injection pain, whereas the use of a plastic device to apply local pressure to the skin (ShotBlocker) did not significantly reduce pain (2 studies, SMD = -0.51[-1.58,0.56]). Acupressure techniques which mostly involved applying sustained pressure followed by intermittent pressure (tapping) to acupressure points local to the injection site reduced pain (4 studies: SMD = -1.62[-2.80,-0.44]), as did injections to the ventrogluteal site compared to the dorsogluteal site (2 studies, SMD = -0.43[-0.81,-0.06]). There was insufficient evidence on the benefits of the 'Z track technique' (2 studies, SMD = -0.20[-0.41,0.01]) and the cold needle technique (2 studies, SMD = -0.73[-1.83,0.37]) on injection pain. The effect of changing the needle after drawing up the injectate on injection pain was conflicting and warming the injectate did not reduce pain. Limitations included considerable heterogeneity, poor reporting of randomisation, and possible bias in outcome measures from unblinding of assessors or participants.
CONCLUSIONS
Manual pressure or rhythmic tapping over the injection site and applying local pressure around the injection site reduced IMI pain. However, there was very high unexplained heterogeneity between studies and risk of significant bias within small studies.
Topics: Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Pain; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 33939726
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250883 -
Biomedicines Jan 2021pain is one of the main symptoms of endometriosis and it has a deleterious effect on a patients' personal and social life. To date, the clinical management of pain... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
pain is one of the main symptoms of endometriosis and it has a deleterious effect on a patients' personal and social life. To date, the clinical management of pain includes prolonged medication use and, in some cases, surgery, both of which are disruptive events for patients. Hence, there is an urgency for the development of a sufficient non-invasive medical treatment. Inflammation is one of the causative factors of pain in endometriosis. It is well established that inflammatory mediators promote angiogenesis and interact with the sensory neurons inducing the pain signal; the threshold of pain varies and it depends on the state and location of the disease. The inhibition of inflammatory mediators' synthesis might offer a novel and effective treatment of the pain that is caused by inflammation in endometriosis.
OBJECTIVES
patients with endometriosis experience chronic pelvic pain, which is moderate to severe in terms of intensity. The objective of this systematic review is to highlight the inflammatory mediators that contribute to the induction of pain in endometriosis and present their biological mechanism of action. In addition, the authors aim to identify new targets for the development of novel treatments for chronic pelvic pain in patients with endometriosis.
DATA SOURCES
three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Europe PMC) were searched in order to retrieve articles with the keywords 'inflammation, pain, and endometriosis' between the review period of 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020. This review has been registered with PROSPERO (registry number: CRD42020171018). Eligibility Criteria: only original articles that presented the regulation of inflammatory mediators and related biological molecules in endometriosis and their contribution in the stimulation of pain signal were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
two authors independently extracted data from articles, using predefined criteria.
RESULTS
the database search yielded 1871 articles, which were narrowed down to 56 relevant articles of interest according to the eligibility criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
inflammatory factors that promote angiogenesis and neuroangiogenesis are promising targets for the treatment of inflammatory pain in endometriosis. Specifically, CXC chemokine family, chemokine fractalkine, and PGE have an active role in the induction of pain. Additionally, IL-1β appears to be the primary interleukin (IL), which stimulates the majority of the inflammatory factors that contribute to neuroangiogenesis along with IL-6. Finally, the role of Ninj1 and BDNF proteins needs further investigation.
PubMed: 33435569
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines9010054 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2008Pelvic inflammatory disease is caused by infection of the upper female genital tract and is often asymptomatic. Pelvic inflammatory disease is the most common... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pelvic inflammatory disease is caused by infection of the upper female genital tract and is often asymptomatic. Pelvic inflammatory disease is the most common gynaecological reason for admission to hospital in the USA and is diagnosed in almost 2% of women aged 16-45 years consulting their GP in England and Wales.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of empirical treatment compared with treatment delayed until the results of microbiological investigations are known? How do different antimicrobial regimens compare? What are the effects of routine antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease before intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD)8 insertion? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to May 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 9 systematic reviews, RCTs or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics (oral, parenteral, empirical treatment, treatment guided by test results, different durations, outpatient, inpatient), and routine antibiotic prophylaxis (before intrauterine device insertion in women at high risk or low risk).
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Hospitalization; Humans; Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
PubMed: 19450319
DOI: No ID Found