BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2020
Cervical dilatation and preparation prior to outpatient hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
De Silva P M, Wilson L, Carnegy A, Smith P P, Clark T J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There are uncertainties about the benefit of routine cervical preparation and/or cervical dilatation before outpatient hysteroscopy.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if cervical preparation and/or routine mechanical dilatation reduces pain during outpatient hysteroscopy.
SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched on 19 October 2020, using keywords 'hysteroscopy', 'cervical preparation', 'cervical ripening', 'cervical dilatation', 'outpatient', 'office' and/or 'ambulatory' and associated medical subject headings.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating the benefit of cervical preparation and/or cervical dilatation on pain in women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers selected eligible trials and extracted data on pain, feasibility, adverse events and satisfaction/acceptability for meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: The literature search yielded 807 records, of which 24 were included for review and 19 provided data for meta-analysis. No trials investigated the role of routine mechanical cervical dilatation. Cervical preparation significantly reduced pain during outpatient hysteroscopy; standard mean difference (SMD) -0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.05 to -0.29. Feasibility also improved as priming provided significantly easier hysteroscopic entry (SMD 0.89, 95% CI 0.32-1.46), greater cervical dilatation (SMD 0.81, 95% CI 0.08-1.53) and shorter procedural times (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.13). Cervical preparation, however, incurred significantly more adverse effects, mainly comprising genital tract bleeding, abdominal pain and gastrointestinal symptoms (odds ratio 2.94, 95% CI 1.58-5.47). There were limited data regarding satisfaction, acceptability and complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Cervical preparation reduces pain and improves feasibility associated with outpatient hysteroscopy but increases the risk of adverse effects.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Cervical preparation before outpatient hysteroscopy reduces pain, enhances feasibility but increases adverse effects.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if cervical preparation and/or routine mechanical dilatation reduces pain during outpatient hysteroscopy.
SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched on 19 October 2020, using keywords 'hysteroscopy', 'cervical preparation', 'cervical ripening', 'cervical dilatation', 'outpatient', 'office' and/or 'ambulatory' and associated medical subject headings.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating the benefit of cervical preparation and/or cervical dilatation on pain in women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers selected eligible trials and extracted data on pain, feasibility, adverse events and satisfaction/acceptability for meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: The literature search yielded 807 records, of which 24 were included for review and 19 provided data for meta-analysis. No trials investigated the role of routine mechanical cervical dilatation. Cervical preparation significantly reduced pain during outpatient hysteroscopy; standard mean difference (SMD) -0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.05 to -0.29. Feasibility also improved as priming provided significantly easier hysteroscopic entry (SMD 0.89, 95% CI 0.32-1.46), greater cervical dilatation (SMD 0.81, 95% CI 0.08-1.53) and shorter procedural times (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.13). Cervical preparation, however, incurred significantly more adverse effects, mainly comprising genital tract bleeding, abdominal pain and gastrointestinal symptoms (odds ratio 2.94, 95% CI 1.58-5.47). There were limited data regarding satisfaction, acceptability and complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Cervical preparation reduces pain and improves feasibility associated with outpatient hysteroscopy but increases the risk of adverse effects.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Cervical preparation before outpatient hysteroscopy reduces pain, enhances feasibility but increases adverse effects.