Journal of minimally invasive gynecology · 2011
Clinical practice guideline for abnormal uterine bleeding: hysterectomy versus alternative therapy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяКлинические рекомендацииСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Wheeler Thomas L, Murphy Miles, Rogers Rebecca G, Gala Rajiv, Washington Blair, Bradley Linda, Uhlig Katrin, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group
Аннотация
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations in selecting treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).
DESIGN: Clinical practice guidelines.
SETTING: Randomized clinical trials compared bleeding, quality of life, pain, sexual health, satisfaction, the need for subsequent surgery, and adverse events between hysterectomy and less-invasive treatment options.
PATIENTS: Women with AUB, predominantly from ovulatory disorders and endometrial causes.
INTERVENTIONS: On the basis of findings from a systematic review, clinical practice guidelines were developed. Rating the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grades for Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: This paper identified few high-quality studies that directly compared uterus-preserving treatments (endometrial ablation, levonorgestrel intrauterine system and systemically administered medications) with hysterectomy. The evidence from these randomized clinical trials demonstrated that there are trade-offs between hysterectomy and uterus-preserving treatments in terms of efficacy and adverse events.
CONCLUSION: Selecting an appropriate treatment for AUB requires identifying a woman's most burdensome symptoms and incorporating her values and preferences when weighing the relative benefits and harms of hysterectomy versus other treatment options.
DESIGN: Clinical practice guidelines.
SETTING: Randomized clinical trials compared bleeding, quality of life, pain, sexual health, satisfaction, the need for subsequent surgery, and adverse events between hysterectomy and less-invasive treatment options.
PATIENTS: Women with AUB, predominantly from ovulatory disorders and endometrial causes.
INTERVENTIONS: On the basis of findings from a systematic review, clinical practice guidelines were developed. Rating the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grades for Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: This paper identified few high-quality studies that directly compared uterus-preserving treatments (endometrial ablation, levonorgestrel intrauterine system and systemically administered medications) with hysterectomy. The evidence from these randomized clinical trials demonstrated that there are trade-offs between hysterectomy and uterus-preserving treatments in terms of efficacy and adverse events.
CONCLUSION: Selecting an appropriate treatment for AUB requires identifying a woman's most burdensome symptoms and incorporating her values and preferences when weighing the relative benefits and harms of hysterectomy versus other treatment options.