The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2002
A retrospective cohort study comparing microwave endometrial ablation with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device in the management of heavy menstrual bleeding.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Henshaw Richard, Coyle Christy, Low Stephanie, Barry Christopher
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) with a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (Mirena) in the management of heavy menstrual bleeding.
DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study
SAMPLE: Thirty-nine women were treated with MEA and 23 women with Mirena, in the South East Regional Health Service of South Australia during 1998 to 2001; the mean duration of follow-up was 14.6 months.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary measures included acceptability of the treatment process, effectiveness of the treatment, and satisfaction with outcomes. Secondary measures included side effects, complications and quality of life (using the SF-36).
RESULTS: Acceptability of the treatment process and satisfaction with outcomes was very high for both procedures. Each treatment led to a statistically significant reduction in menstrual bleeding (p < 0.0001) and dysmenorrhoea scores (p < 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistical differences between the two treatments for any of the primary or secondary outcome measures assessed. The treatments seem equally effective in the management of heavy menstrual loss.
DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study
SAMPLE: Thirty-nine women were treated with MEA and 23 women with Mirena, in the South East Regional Health Service of South Australia during 1998 to 2001; the mean duration of follow-up was 14.6 months.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary measures included acceptability of the treatment process, effectiveness of the treatment, and satisfaction with outcomes. Secondary measures included side effects, complications and quality of life (using the SF-36).
RESULTS: Acceptability of the treatment process and satisfaction with outcomes was very high for both procedures. Each treatment led to a statistically significant reduction in menstrual bleeding (p < 0.0001) and dysmenorrhoea scores (p < 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistical differences between the two treatments for any of the primary or secondary outcome measures assessed. The treatments seem equally effective in the management of heavy menstrual loss.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultChi-Square DistributionCohort StudiesEndometriumFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntrauterine Devices, MedicatedLevonorgestrelMenorrhagiaMicrowavesMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionProbabilityProgesterone CongenersQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificitySeverity of Illness IndexSouth AustraliaStatistics, NonparametricTreatment Outcome