Systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery vs laparoscopic hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Because vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques both aim to decrease tissue injury and postoperative morbidity and mortality and to improve a patient's quality of life, we sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a hysterectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and compared that with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic diseases. DATA SOURCES: We used Scopus, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library and searched from database inception to September 1, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all eligible articles that compared vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy with any conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy technique without robotic assistance for women with benign gynecologic pathology and that included at least 1 of our main outcomes. These outcomes included estimated blood loss (in mL), operation time (in minutes), length of hospital stay (in days), decrease in hemoglobin level (g/dL), visual analog scale pain score on postoperative day 1, opioid analgesic dose required, rate of conversion to another surgical technique, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and requirements for blood transfusion. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Ultimately, 14 studies met our criteria. METHODS: The study quality of the randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane assessment tool, and the quality of the observational studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. We analyzed data using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using the mean difference and 95% confidence intervals under the inverse variance analysis method. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using OpenMeta[Analyst] and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported. RESULTS: The operative time and length of hospitalization were shorter in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery cohort. We also found lower visual analog scale pain scores, fewer postoperative complications, and fewer blood transfusions in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery group. We found no difference in the estimated blood loss, decrease in hemoglobin levels, analgesic usage, conversion rates, or intraoperative complications. CONCLUSION: When evaluating the latest data, it seems that vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery techniques may have some advantages over conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques.

Vaginal Hysterectomy Compared With Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Benign Gynecologic Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical efficacy outcomes and complications after laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy performed for benign gynecologic conditions. DATA SOURCES: We performed an online search in major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the Cochrane Library from 2000 until February 28, 2023. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy in benign gynecologic conditions. We located 3,249 articles. After reviewing titles and abstracts, we identified 32 articles that were eligible for full-text screening. We excluded nine articles as not-RCT or not comparing vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy. Twenty-three articles were included in the final systematic review, with 22 articles included in the meta-analysis. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Twenty-three eligible RCTs included a total population of 2,408, with 1,105 in the vaginal hysterectomy group and 1,303 in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group. Blood loss and postoperative urinary tract infection rates were lower in the vaginal hysterectomy group than in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group (mean difference -68, 95% CI -104.29 to -31.7, P <.01, I2 =95% and odds ratio 1.73, 95% CI 0.92-3.26, P =.03, I2 =0%, respectively). Vaginal hysterectomy was associated with less total operative time, less recovery time, and greater postoperative pain on the day of surgery. Other complications, including conversion to laparotomy, visceral organ damage, or wound dehiscence, were uncommon. Because of insufficient data, we were not able to stratify by surgical indication. CONCLUSION: Vaginal hysterectomy had a shorter total operative time and recovery time but greater postoperative pain on day of surgery compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42023338538.

Effect of a 20% intravenous fat emulsion therapy on pregnancy outcomes in women with RPL or RIF undergoing IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy a 20% intravenous fat emulsion therapy in women suffering from recurrent pregnancy loss or recurrent implantation failure (RPL/RIF) who are undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Materials and Methods: We searched Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and Scopus using relevant keywords during February 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the therapy versus placebo or no intervention in women suffering from RPL/RIF and undergoing IVF/ICSI. Results: We included five RCTs with 840 patients. The intravenous fat emulsion therapy was significantly effective in increasing clinical pregnancy rates compared to the control group (risk ratios [RR] = 1.48, 95% confidence intervals [CI] [1.23, 1.79], P < 0.001). Furthermore, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates were significantly higher with 20% intravenous fat emulsion therapy RR = 1.71, 95% CI [1.27, 2.32], P = 0.005 and RR = 1.85, 95% CI [1.44, 2.38], P < 0.001. Despite the statistically significant differences, the quality of evidence was only considered moderate, and this was primarily due to high risk of bias in the included RCTs. Conclusion: Our review provides a moderate level of evidence that intravenous fat emulsion therapy is effective in improving reproductive outcomes among women with RPL/RIF performing IVF/ICSI techniques. Further, investigation is required to ascertain optimal dosage and timing of administration. Relevance for Patients: Women suffering from RPL or RIF may wish to consider discussing with their reproductive endocrinologist the addition of a 20% fat emulsion therapy to planned IVF or ICSI cycles, which may improve outcomes.

Risk of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality after vaccination against COVID-19: A meta-analysis of self-controlled case series studies.

Self-controlled case series (SCCS) is a novel study design uniquely equipped to ethically quantify the safety of vaccination. We sought out to perform a meta-analysis on all SCCS assessing mortality associated with COVID-19 vaccination in the immediate post-vaccination period. We included SCCS investigating the safety of COVID-19 vaccination and reporting all-cause and cardiac-related mortality. Three SCCS were located, totaling approximately 750,000 patients. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) revealed no significant association of COVID-19 vaccination with all-cause mortality (HR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.71, 1.10], p = .28). Regarding cardiac-related mortality, the pooled HR suggests that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with an increased risk of cardiac-related mortality (HR = 1.06, 95% CI [1.02, 1.11], p = .007). Subgroup analysis showed that the male gender is significantly associated with an increased incidence of cardiac-related deaths (HR = 1.09, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15], p = .006). In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination may be associated with a small increase in cardiac-related mortality, especially among males. Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022372256.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is associated with increased pregnancy complications. Despite effective vaccination strategies for the general population, the evidence on the safety and efficacy of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations in pregnancy is limited due to a lack of well-powered studies. The present study compares the maternal, neonatal, and immunological outcomes between vaccinated pregnant and unvaccinated pregnant women using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. We included 37 studies with a total of 141,107 pregnant women (36.8% vaccinated) spread across all outcomes. Our evidence indicates a higher rate of cesarean section in the 1898 vaccinated pregnant women compared to the 6180 women who did not receive vaccination (OR = 1.20, CI = (1.05, 1.38), P = 0.007, I2 = 45%). Regarding immunological outcomes, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy or postpartum was significantly reduced in 6820 vaccinated pregnant women compared to 17,010 unvaccinated pregnant women (OR = 0.25, CI = 0.13-0.48, P < 0.0001, I2 = 61%), as evident from qualitative assessment indicating significantly higher postpartum antibody titers compared to that observed in both unvaccinated mothers and mothers who have recently recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our analysis represents high quality evidence showing that COVID-19 vaccination effectively raises antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2. This may confer protection against infection during pregnancy and the postpartum period. In addition to being protective against SARS-CoV-2, the vaccine was associated with decreased odds of preterm delivery. Furthermore, COVID-19 vaccination may also be associated with higher odds of cesarean section.

Trends of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Mortality in the United States Before and During the COVID-19 Era: Estimates From the Centers for Disease Control WONDER Database.

Background: There have been reports of increased upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Still, only a few studies have examined the mortality rate associated with UGIB in the United States before and during COVID-19. Hereby, we explored the trends of UGIB mortality in the United States before and during COVID-19. The study's objective was to investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted UGIB mortality rates in the USA. Methods: The decedents with UGIB were included. Age-standardized mortality rates were estimated with the indirect method using the 2000 US Census as the standard population. We utilized the deidentified data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database. Linear regression analysis was performed to determine 2021 projected mortality rates based on trends between 2012 and 2019 to quantify the association of the pandemic with UGIB-related deaths. Results: The mortality rate increased from 3.3 per 100,000 to 4.3 per 100,000 among the population between 2012 and 2021. There was a significant increase in the overall mortality rate between each year and the following year from 2012 to 2019, ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100,000, while the rise in the overall mortality rate between each year and 2021 ranges from 0.4 to 0.9 per 100,000. Conclusions: Our results showed that the mortality rate increased among the population between 2012and 2021, suggesting a possible influence of COVID-19 infection on the incidence and mortality of UGIB.

Different Doses of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared with Olmesartan in Patients with Essential Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Since sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) has neprilysin inhibition and angiotensin receptor-blocking properties, it is anticipated to have strong antihypertensive effects. However, there is not enough evidence to compare the safety and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan to those of olmesartan in patients with hypertension. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan in patients with hypertension. METHODS: This study follows the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant clinical trials. We extracted outcome endpoints regarding mean ambulatory systolic/diastolic blood pressure (maSBP/maDBP), mean sitting systolic/diastolic blood pressure (msSBP/msDBP), mean ambulatory/mean sitting pulse pressure (maPP/msPP), the proportion of patients achieving blood pressure control (< 140/90 mmHg), and adverse events. We used Review Manager Software for the conduction of the analysis of this study. The effect estimates of the studies were pooled as Mean difference or risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. We also conducted a subgroup analysis based on the dose of sacubitril/valsartan. RESULTS: A total of six clinical trials were included. The studies showed an overall low risk of bias. The pooled effect estimate revealed that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduces maSBP, maDBP, maPP, msSBP, and msDBP measurements compared with olmesartan (p < 0.001). A significantly higher portion of patients achieved blood pressure control in the sacubitril/valsartan group (p < 0.001). The test of subgroup difference showed that 400 mg dose is significantly more effective than 200 mg dose in reducing maSBP. Regarding the safety profile, olmesartan was associated with more side effects due to drug discontinuation and more serious side effects. CONCLUSION: Sacubitril/valsartan or LCZ696 is more effective and safer than olmesartan for controlling blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

Effect of the decision to perform hysteroscopy on asymptomatic patients before undergoing assisted reproduction technologies-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Routine hysteroscopic evaluation before assisted reproductive technology treatment is a novel approach with the potential to reduce assisted reproductive technology failure even in the absence of evidence of uterine pathology. Following the publication of several relatively high-quality trials on this topic, we sought to determine if this practice is beneficial. DATA SOURCES: We searched Web of Science, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from each database's inception until May 31, 2022 with our search strategy, attempting to locate all randomized controlled trials assessing the use of hysteroscopy in otherwise asymptomatic women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included only randomized controlled trials that included at least one of our selected outcomes, and we excluded any studies with suspicion of pathology before the time of hysteroscopy, other than knowledge of the patient's infertility. We included all the aforementioned studies regardless of procedures or modifications performed as a result of hysteroscopic findings. Our initial search yielded 1802 results, which were reduced to 1421 after removal of duplicates. Ultimately, 11 studies were found to meet our criteria and were included in our quantitative synthesis. METHODS: We used ReviewManager software, version 5.4.1 to analyze the data, which we imported after manually gathering from the 11 studies. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were imported as standard deviations. Pooled analysis was described as a mean difference, relative to 95 % confidence interval in cases of continuous data. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. In homogeneous outcomes, we used a fixed-effects model, and in heterogeneous outcomes we used a random-effects model. RESULTS: Our results showed that hysteroscopy was associated with significant improvement in the clinical pregnancy rate (risk ratio, 1.27 [1.11-1.45]; P<.001). We found no differences between the hysteroscopy group and the control group in live birth rate (risk ratio, 1.26 [0.99-1.59]; P=.06), miscarriage rate (risk ratio, 0.99 [0.81-1.19]; P=.88), fertilization rate (risk ratio, 1.01 [0.93-1.09]; P=.88), incidence of multiple gestations (risk ratio, 1.29 [0.98-1.71]; P=.07), number of embryos transferred (mean difference, 0.04 [-0.18 to 0.26]; P=.73), chemical pregnancy rate (risk ratio, 1.01 [0.86-1.17]; P=.93), and number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference, 0.44 [-0.11 to 0.98]; P=.11). CONCLUSION: We observed an improvement in the clinical pregnancy rate, but no significant improvement in the live birth rate with routine hysteroscopy before assisted reproductive technology treatment. We believe this does not represent sufficient evidence to recommend routine hysteroscopy for otherwise asymptomatic patients before assisted reproductive technology treatment at this time.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.

Recent evidence has shown an increase in recurrence and a decrease in overall survival in patients treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) open techniques (ORH). In addition, several high quality trials were recently published regarding the laparoscopic treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought out to reassess the recurrence rates, overall survival, complications and outcomes associated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) techniques against open techniques (ORH) when robotic assisted techniques were excluded. We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.Gov and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. We included all studies that compared with early stage cervical cancer receiving LRH compared with ORH. We included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort trials. We included studies that included LRH and RRH as long as data was available to separate the two arms. We excluded studies that combined LRH and RRH without supplying data to differentiate. Of 1244 total studies, we used a manual three step screening process. Sixty studies ultimately met our criteria. We performed this review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using odds ratio (OR) and a 95% CI. Review Manager and Endnote software were utilized in the synthesis. We found that when excluding RRH, the was no significant difference regarding 5-year overall Survival (OR = 1.24 [0.94, 1.64], (P = 0.12), disease free survival (OR = 1.00 [0.80, 1.26], (P = 0.98), recurrence (OR = 1.01 [0.81, 1.25], (P = 0.95), or intraoperative complications (OR = 1.38 [0.94, 2.04], (P = 0.10). LRH was statistically better than ORH in terms of estimated blood loss (MD = - 325.55 [- 386.16, - 264.94] (P < 0.001), blood transfusion rate (OR = 0.28 [0.14, 0.55], (P = 0.002), postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.70 [0.55, 0.90], (P = 0.005), and length of hospital stay (MD = - 3.64[- 4.27, - 3.01], (P < 0.001). ORH was superior in terms of operating time (MD = 20.48 [8.62, 32.35], (P = 0.007) and number of resected lymph nodes (MD = - 2.80 [- 4.35, - 1.24], (P = 0.004). The previously seen increase recurrence and decrease in survival is not seen in LRH when robotic assisted techniques are included and all new high quality is considered. LRH is also associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower complication rate.Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022267138.

Treatment of Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy in China with Uterine Artery Embolization-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSP) is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy, and treatment of CSP with uterine artery embolization (UAE) is a novel approach. With increasing numbers of cesarean sections being performed annually, the incidence of this condition is likely to increase. The authors became aware of an unusually high number of published studies originating in mainland China regarding this unusual treatment and sought to perform a meta-analysis to provide comprehensive evidence on this novel practice. METHODS: We performed a thorough search and included all forms of quality studies on this topic that reported UAE as a part of first-line management of CSP. We included only studies originating in China. Ultimately, 37 studies were included for qualitative and quantitative synthesis of evidence. After screening retrieved records and extracting data from eligible studies, we pooled continuous data as a mean estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous data as proportion and 95% CI. RESULTS: CSP patients treated with protocols including UAE had a mean time of 30 days for serum ß-hCG normalization, 95% CI [26.816, 33.881]. They had a mean estimated intraprocedural blood loss of 4.19 ± 3.76 mL, a mean hospital stay of nine days, 95%CI [7.914, 9.876], and a success rate of 93.4%, 95%CI [0.918, 0.951]. The severe complication rate was 1.2%, 95%CI [0.008, 0.017]. CONCLUSION: UAE, in combination with other procedures is being used effectively for the treatment of CSP in China. Protocols including UAE have a success rate of approximately 93.4%, and a severe complication rate of approximately 1.2%. This data's utility is limited by vast differences in the studied protocols and questionable feasibility outside of China.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of gabapentin in chronic female pelvic pain without another diagnosis.

Background: While widely used for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain, limited data exists on efficacy of gabapentin, especially in the subgroup of women suffering from chronic pelvic pain without a known diagnosis, such as endometriosis. Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of gabapentin when administered to women with chronic pelvic pain without another diagnosis. Study Design: We performed a Systematic Review and Meta Analysis including all controlled clinical trials addressing the use of gabapentin for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain without another diagnosis. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library from inception of each database to April 30, 2021. We included all the studies that fulfilled the following criteria: (1) population: women suffering from chronic pelvic pain without another identified diagnosis (such as endometriosis); (2) intervention: gabapentin (regardless of the dosage); (3) comparator:placebo; (4) outcomes: pain score (visual analog scale) after 3 months and pain score (visual analog scale) after 6 months as primary outcomes; and (5) study design: we only included randomized or controlled clinical trials. Our exclusion criteria included (1) uncontrolled clinical trials, (2) studies that did not report data or measures for any of our selected outcomes, (3) studies that included patients with surgically or clinically diagnosed endometriosis, or (4) studies with no full-text manuscript available. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We analyzed dichotomous outcomes as percentages and totals, whereas continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean difference, standard deviations, and relative 95% confidence intervals using the inverse variance method. Results: We included 4 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials. Analysis was hindered because half of the studies (n=2) used the visual analog scale pain score and the other half (n=2) used the numerical rating scale. The analysis showed that when compared with the placebo, gabapentin significantly lowered the visual analog scale pain score at 3 months (mean difference, 0.79; 1.23 to 0.35; P=.005) and 6 months (mean difference, 1.68; 2.30 to 1.05; P=.001) and the numerical rating scale pain score at 3 months (mean difference, 0.20; 0.25 to 0.15; P=.001). However, in terms of the numerical rating scale pain score after 6 months, the 2 groups showed no significant difference (mean difference, 0.27; 0.80 to 0.26; P=.32). CONCLUSION: Gabapentin may hold benefit for the management of chronic pelvic pain, with significant improvement in pain seen in both scales at 3 months when compared with the placebo, but only in the visual analog scale group at 6 months of usage. Secondary to the differences in the nature of the 2 scales, a further weighted combined analysis was not possible.

Efficacy of Single-Pill, Triple Antihypertensive Therapy in Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Systemic arterial hypertension is the most common preventable risk factor for all causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide with a prevalence of 35-40% of the adults. Despite the wide variety of effective antihypertensive medications, most hypertensive patients remain uncontrolled. However, the combination of ACE inhibitor, diuretics, and calcium antagonist for the triple therapy in a single Pill Combination (SPC) is an efficient regimen in hypertension management. It is recommended by the ESH 2018 guideline, which offers better efficacy and compliance to treatment. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine single-pill combination in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for relevant clinical trials. We conducted the risk of bias assessment using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We performed the analysis of continuous data using mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using risk ratio (RR) and relative 95% CI. We included the analysis of the following outcomes: systolic blood pressure (SBP), Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), Heart rate (HR), 24 h Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for SBP, and 24 h ABPM for DBP. RESULTS: We included six clinical trials. We found that the triple therapy significantly reduces SBP by 24 mmHg (MD = - 24.65 [22.41, 26.89], (P < 0.01)), DBP by 12 mmHg (MD = 12.41 [11.53, 13.29], (P < 0.01)), 24-h ABPM for SBP by 14 mmHg (MD = 14.08 [9.10, 19.05], (P < 0.01)), and ABPM 24 h DBP by 7 mmHg (MD = 7.01 [5.37, 8.65], (P < 0.01)). We noted no significant difference of the single pill on heart rate (MD = 0.81 [- 0.04, 1.67], (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine is effective in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressures by 24 and 12 mmHg respectively. Over 24 h, the combination reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressures by 14 and 7 mmHg respectively.

Effect of metformin on proliferative markers in women with endometrial carcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the USA and Western Europe. Surgery is the mainstay of both staging and treatment of EC. Fertility sparing medical therapies are often offered to young women who desire fertility. Metformin has been suggested to be an anti-cancer agent as evidenced by previous studies. It decreases Antigen Ki-67 (Ki-67) proliferation and expression which is associated with proliferative activity of malignant tumors. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the efficacy of metformin on patients with EC. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS for relevant clinical trials and excluded observational studies. The quality appraisal was evaluated according to GRADE, and we assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We conducted the analysis of continuous data using mean difference (MD). We included the following outcomes: Ki-67 index, glucose, insulin, P-S6, body mass index (BMI), C-peptide, Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), leptin, and hemoglobin. Results: Nine studies were eligible for our meta-analysis. We found that compared to the control group, metformin is highly effective in reducing Ki-67 proliferation and expression [MD=-10.14 (-19.10, -1.17)], (p=0.03), P-S6 [MD=-1.82 (-3.17, -0.46)], (p=0.009), plasma glucose level [MD=-1.76 (-4.88, 1.37), p=0.27], and BMI [MD=-1.07 (-1.49, -0.65)], (p<0.001). Conclusion: We conclude that metformin administration is effective in patients with EC. It decreases Ki-67 proliferation and expression, serum glucose, and p-S6 significantly.

Birth Outcomes of Neonates Exposed to Marijuana in Utero: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: While some studies have found an association between marijuana use and adverse neonatal outcomes, results have not been consistent across all trials. Objective: To assess available data on neonatal outcomes in marijuana-exposed pregnancies. Data Sources: PubMed, Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from each database's inception until August 16, 2021. Study Selection: All interventional and observational studies that included pregnant women who were exposed to marijuana compared with pregnant women who were not exposed to marijuana and that reported neonatal outcomes were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline. Data were extracted by 2 authors for all outcomes, which were pooled using a random-effects model as mean difference or risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI. Data were analyzed from August through September 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: All outcomes were formulated prior to data collection. Outcomes included incidence of birth weight less than 2500 g, small for gestational age (defined as less than the fifth percentile fetal weight for gestational age), rate of preterm delivery (defined as before 37 weeks' gestation), gestational age at time of delivery, birth weight, incidence of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, Apgar score at 1 minute, Apgar score at 5 minutes, incidence of an Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes, fetal head circumference, and fetal length. Results: Among 16 studies including 59 138 patients, there were significant increases in 7 adverse neonatal outcomes among women who were exposed to marijuana during pregnancy vs those who were not exposed during pregnancy. These included increased risk of birth weight less than 2500 g (RR, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.25 to 3.42]; P = .005), small for gestational age (RR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.44 to 1.79]; P < .001), preterm delivery (RR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.42]; P < .001), and NICU admission (RR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.18 to 1.62]; P < .001), along with decreased mean birth weight (mean difference, -112.30 [95% CI, -167.19 to -57.41] g; P < .001), Apgar score at 1 minute (mean difference, -0.26 [95% CI, -0.43 to -0.09]; P = .002), and infant head circumference (mean difference, -0.34 [95% CI, -0.63 to -0.06] cm; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that women exposed to marijuana in pregnancy were at a significantly increased risk of some adverse neonatal outcomes. These findings suggest that increasing awareness about these risks may be associated with improved outcomes.

Efficacy of hyoscine in pain management during hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials from full-text, scientific journal archives to assess the efficacy of hyoscine for the management of pain during in-office hysteroscopy (OH) procedures. Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS and the Web of Science were searched for all clinical trials that matched our search criteria. A full assessment of bias was made using the Cochrane Group tool-set. The following outcomes were included: visual analogue scale (VAS) score for postoperative pain, postoperative need for analgesia, and procedure time. In the case of homogeneous data, the analysis was performed using a fixed effects system, and the random effects system was used with heterogeneous data. Inclusion criteria included only randomized clinical trials, and interventions that included patients receiving hyoscine-N-Butyl Bromide during OH, regardless of dose or mode of administration, and compared this with placebo. Three clinical trials were included. The actual mean difference (MD) of the VAS pain score showed no significant difference between hyoscine or placebo [MD: -0.28 (-1.08, 0.52), (p=0.49)]. For postoperative analgesia, the overall MD showed no significant difference between hyoscine or placebo [MD: 0.43 (0.16, 1.14), (p=0.09)]. For procedure time, the combined effect estimate failed to show any significant difference between hyoscine and placebo [MD: -0.66 (-2.77, 1.44) (p=0.54)]. Contrary to previously published data, our meta-analysis using the latest available RCTs fails to show hyoscine as being effective in reducing pain or the need for other forms of anesthesia in OH.

Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the Uterus, a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Several authors have recently compared the outcomes and complications of surgical procedures that preserve or remove the uterus in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Following the publication of several high quality randomized control trials on this topic we performed a new systematic review and meta analysis of this data. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, EBSCO host, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled and cohort trials of uterine sparing prolapse repair (hysteropexy) versus hysterectomy with suspension. A total of 1285 patients from 14 studies were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. RESULTS: Uterine sparing procedures (hysteropexy) were comparable to hysterectomy with suspension for recurrence rates (RR = 0.908, 95% CI [0.385, 2.143]), reoperation rates (RR = 1.517, 95% CI [0.802, 2.868]), length of hospital stay, (SMD =  - 0.159 days, 95% CI [-0.375, 0.057]), voiding dysfunction (RR = 1.089, 95% CI [0.695, 1.706]), and intraoperative blood loss (SMD =  - 0.339, 95% CI [-0.631, 0.047]). However, hysteropexy had shorter operative time than hysterectomy with suspension (SMD =  - 1.191 h, 95% CI [-1.836, -0.545]), and fewer visceral injuries (RR = 0.421, 95% CI [0.244, 0.725]). CONCLUSION: We found no significant differences in the outcomes or major complications of uterine preserving surgical procedures versus those which include hysterectomy in the treatment of POP. Hysteropexy procedures may be associated with a shorter operative time and fewer visceral injuries. This is consistent with older analyses.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Intraoperative Bupivacaine in Gynaecologic Surgery After 24 Hours or 9 Half-Lives.

OBJECTIVE: To review all high quality available evidence regarding the effect of intraoperative bupivacaine 24 hours (or 8.9 half-lives) after intraoperative administration at time of gynaecologic surgery and to ascertain whether a second mechanism of action, beyond the initial prevention of sodium channel depolarization and blockade of nerve impulses, may be occurring. DATA SOURCES: We searched all major databases with an algorithm designed to include all randomized trials that used any form of local bupivacaine, regardless of dose or route of administration, at the time of any gynaecologic surgery and compared its use with saline placebo. RESULTS: As expected, we found that bupivacaine showed a significant improvement for all gynaecologic surgeries with respect to pain intensity at 6 hours after surgery when compared with a saline group (mean difference [MD] -1.28; 95% CI -1.96 to -0.61], P = 0.07). We also found a significant difference at 24 hours after surgery, giving evidence to the possibility of a second mechanism of action (MD -0.57; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.05], P = 0.01). Further subgroup analysis for pain levels at 24 hours showed significant decreases in pain for the laparoscopy (MD -0.74; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.54, P < 0.01) and laparotomy (MD -2.60; 95% CI -2.93 to -2.27, P < 0.01)) subgroups but not for the vaginal hysterectomy (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.69 to 1.09, P = 0.66) or prolapse surgery (MD -0.11; 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19, P = 0.48) subgroups. There was no significant difference with respect to the length of hospital stay (MD -0.11; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.38, P = 0.67). CONCLUSION: As expected, bupivacaine significantly reduced visual analog pain scores when compared with placebo at 6 hours after surgery, but also showed a significant difference at 24 hours after surgery, giving evidence of a second mechanism of action following the initial sodium channel blockade.

Efficacy of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor blockers in reducing the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs): A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The Global burden of disease study ranked migraine as the sixth most common disorder worldwide in 2016, with significant social and economic sequelae. In this study, we assessed the efficacy of different Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor blockers as potential pharmacological approaches and compare them to placebo using the systematic review (SR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) approach. We performed a computerized search of SCOPUS, PubMed, Cochrane central, and Embase databases through January 2019 and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were performed on episodic and chronic migraine patients who used Erenumab, Eptinezumab, Fremanezumab, or Galcanezumab. The combined analysis revealed that after six, eight, and twelve weeks of intervention, the medications with the most potent effects in comparison to placebo were Fremanezumab 900 mg, (SMD = -0.55, 95% CI [-0.97, -0.12]); Erenumab 140 mg, (SMD = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.41]); and Erenumab 140 mg, (SMD = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.571, 0.39]), respectively. For chronic migraine patients, Fremanezumab 900 mg, Erenumab 140 mg, in addition to Erenumab 70 mg, were associated with the highest efficacy after 6, 8, and 12 weeks, correspondingly. The analysis of combined groups data (Chronic and Episodic) showed that Fremanezumab was the most effective drug after six weeks, where Erenumab was the most effective after 8 and 12 weeks. The current evidence retrieved from this NMA suggests that Fremanezumab was the most effective anti-migraine medication in decreasing MHDs per month after six weeks in both chronic and episodic patients.