Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Embryo incubation and assessment is a vital step in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Traditionally, embryo assessment has been achieved by removing embryos from a conventional incubator daily for quality assessment by an embryologist, under a microscope. In recent years time-lapse systems (TLS) have been developed which can take digital images of embryos at frequent time intervals. This allows embryologists, with or without the assistance of embryo selection software, to assess the quality of the embryos without physically removing them from the incubator.The potential advantages of a TLS include the ability to maintain a stable culture environment, therefore limiting the exposure of embryos to changes in gas composition, temperature, and movement. A TLS has the potential advantage of improving embryo selection for ART treatment by utilising additional information gained through continuously monitoring embryo development. Use of a TLS often adds significant extra cost to ART treatment. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of a TLS compared to conventional embryo incubation and assessment on clinical outcomes in couples undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers on 7 January 2019 and checked references of appropriate papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TLS, with or without embryo selection software, versus conventional incubation with morphological assessment; and TLS with embryo selection software versus TLS without embryo selection software among couples undergoing ART. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and stillbirth, and cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and cumulative clinical pregnancy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology. We made the following comparisons.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentTLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs (N = 2955 infertile couples). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were high risk of bias in the included studies, imprecision, indirectness, and inconsistency. There were no data on cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate or cumulative clinical pregnancy rate.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentIt is unclear whether there is any difference between interventions in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.23, 3 RCTs, N = 826, I2 = 33%, low-quality evidence) or in miscarriage rates (OR 1.90, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.61, 3 RCTs, N = 826, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 35%, the rate with the use of TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 27% and 40%, and if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 4%, the rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 4% and 14%. It is unclear whether there is a difference between the interventions in rates of stillbirth (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.49, 1 RCT, N = 76, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41, 4 RCTs, N = 875, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS imagesAll findings for this comparison were very uncertain due to the very low-quality of the evidence. No data were available on live birth, but one RCT reported ongoing pregnancy. It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.20, 1 RCT, N = 163); miscarriage (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.01, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%); or clinical pregnancy (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%). The evidence suggests that if the rate of ongoing pregnancy associated with TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is 47%, the rate associated with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 22% and 52%, and if the miscarriage rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is 5%, the rate associated with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 4% and 15%. No studies reported stillbirth.TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessmentThe findings for this comparison were also very uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence. It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of live birth (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 84%). There was very low-quality evidence that TLS might reduce miscarriage rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 0%). It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 89%). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 48%, the rate with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 46% and 55%, and if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation and assessment is 11%, the rate associated with TLS would be between 5% and 10%. No stillbirths occurred in the only study reporting this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient good-quality evidence of differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and stillbirth, or clinical pregnancy to choose between TLS, with or without embryo selection software, and conventional incubation. As the evidence is of low or very low-quality, our findings should be interpreted with caution.

Female subfertility.

Subfertility is common and affects one in six couples, half of whom lack an explanation for their delay in conceiving. Developments in the diagnosis and treatment of subfertility over the past 50 years have been truly remarkable. Indeed, current generations of couples with subfertility are more fortunate than previous generations, as they have many more opportunities to become parents. The timely access to effective treatment for subfertility is important as many couples have a narrow window of opportunity before the age-related effects of subfertility limit the likelihood of success. Assisted reproduction can overcome the barriers to fertility caused by tubal disease and low sperm count, but little progress has been made in reducing the effect of increasing age on ovarian function. The next 5-10 years will likely see further increases in birth rates in women with subfertility, a greater awareness of lifestyle factors and a possible refinement of current assisted reproduction techniques and the development of new ones. Such progress will bring challenging questions regarding the potential benefits and harms of treatments involving germ cell manipulation, artificial gametes, genetic screening of embryos and gene editing of embryos. We hope to see a major increase in fertility awareness, access to safe and cost-effective fertility care in low-income countries and a reduction in the current disparity of access to fertility care.

Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: As many as one in six couples will encounter problems with fertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after regular intercourse for 12 months. Increasingly, couples are turning to assisted reproductive technology (ART) for help with conceiving and ultimately giving birth to a healthy live baby of their own. Fertility treatments are complex, and each ART cycle consists of several steps. If one of these steps is incorrectly applied, the stakes are high as conception may not occur. With this in mind, it is important that each step of the ART cycle is supported by good evidence from well-designed studies. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on procedures and treatment options available to couples with subfertility undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures. METHODS: Published Cochrane systematic reviews of couples undergoing ART procedures (in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection) were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation, for future inclusion.The primary outcome of the overview was live birth or the composite outcome live birth or ongoing pregnancy, as reported by the included reviews. Our secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. We excluded studies of intrauterine insemination and ovulation induction.We undertook selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We assessed review quality by using the AMSTAR tool. We organised reviews by their relevance to specific stages in the ART cycle. We summarised their findings in the text and reported data for each outcome in 'Additional tables'. MAIN RESULTS: We included 68 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to May 2018. All were of high quality. These reviews identified 38 interventions that were effective (n = 23) or promising (n = 15), and they identified 19 interventions that were ineffective (n = 2) or possibly ineffective (n = 17). For 15 interventions, review authors were unable to draw conclusions owing to lack of evidence.We identified an additional 11 protocols and four titles for future inclusion in this overview. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on ART cycles from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Fertility treatments are costly, and the stakes are high. Using the best available evidence to optimise outcomes is best practice. Evidence from this overview could be used to develop clinical practice guidelines and protocols that can be applied in daily clinical practice to improve live birth rates and reduce rates of multiple pregnancy, cycle cancellation, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI).

BACKGROUND: During a cycle of in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), women receive daily doses of gonadotropin follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to induce multifollicular development in the ovaries. Generally, the dose of FSH is associated with the number of eggs retrieved. A normal response to stimulation is often considered desirable, for example the retrieval of 5 to 15 oocytes. Both poor and hyper-response are associated with increased chance of cycle cancellation. Hyper-response is also associated with increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Clinicians often individualise the FSH dose using patient characteristics predictive of ovarian response such as age. More recently, clinicians have begun using ovarian reserve tests (ORTs) to predict ovarian response based on the measurement of various biomarkers, including basal FSH (bFSH), antral follicle count (AFC), and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). It is unclear whether individualising FSH dose based on these markers improves clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE, ISI Web of Knowledge, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Trials Registry Platform search portal from inception to 27th July 2017. We checked the reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials that compared different doses of FSH in women with a defined ORT profile (i.e. predicted low, normal or high responders based on AMH, AFC, and/or bFSH) and trials that compared an individualised dosing strategy (based on at least one ORT measure) versus uniform dosing or a different individualised dosing algorithm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and severe OHSS. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, moderate or severe OHSS, multiple pregnancy, oocyte yield, cycle cancellations, and total dose and duration of FSH administration. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 trials (N = 6088); however, we treated those trials with multiple comparisons as separate trials for the purpose of this review. Meta-analysis was limited due to clinical heterogeneity. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding.Direct dose comparisons in women according to predicted responseAll evidence was low or very low quality.Due to differences in dose comparisons, caution is warranted in interpreting the findings of five small trials assessing predicted low responders. The effect estimates were very imprecise, and increased FSH dosing may or may not have an impact on rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy, OHSS, and clinical pregnancy.Similarly, in predicted normal responders (nine studies, three comparisons), higher doses may or may not impact the probability of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (e.g. 200 versus 100 international units: OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.36; N = 522; 2 studies; I2 = 0%) or clinical pregnancy. Results were imprecise, and a small benefit or harm remains possible. There were too few events for the outcome of OHSS to enable any inferences.In predicted high responders, lower doses may or may not have an impact on rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.46; N = 521; 1 study), OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. However, lower doses probably reduce the likelihood of moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 6.67; N = 521; 1 study).ORT-algorithm studiesFour trials compared an ORT-based algorithm to a non-ORT control group. Rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy did not appear to differ by more than a few percentage points (respectively: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.23; N = 2823, 4 studies; I2 = 34%; OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13, 4 studies, I2=0%, moderate-quality evidence). However, ORT algorithms probably reduce the likelihood of moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.00; N = 2823; 4 studies; I2 = 0%, low quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.99; N = 1494; 3 studies; I2 = 0%, low quality evidence). Our findings suggest that if the chance of live birth with a standard dose is 26%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 24% and 30%. If the chance of moderate or severe OHSS with a standard dose is 2.5%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 0.8% and 2.5%. These results should be treated cautiously due to heterogeneity in the study designs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find that tailoring the FSH dose in any particular ORT population (low, normal, high ORT), influenced rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy but we could not rule out differences, due to sample size limitations. In predicted high responders, lower doses of FSH seemed to reduce the overall incidence of moderate and severe OHSS. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that ORT-based individualisation produces similar live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates to a policy of giving all women 150 IU. However, in all cases the confidence intervals are consistent with an increase or decrease in the rate of around five percentage points with ORT-based dosing (e.g. from 25% to 20% or 30%). Although small, a difference of this magnitude could be important to many women. Further, ORT algorithms reduced the incidence of OHSS compared to standard dosing of 150 IU, probably by facilitating dose reductions in women with a predicted high response. However, the size of the effect is unclear. The included studies were heterogeneous in design, which limited the interpretation of pooled estimates, and many of the included studies had a serious risk of bias.Current evidence does not provide a clear justification for adjusting the standard dose of 150 IU in the case of poor or normal responders, especially as increased dose is generally associated with greater total FSH dose and therefore greater cost. However, a decreased dose in predicted high responders may reduce OHSS.

Gynaecologists and industry: ain't no sunshine.

The field of reproductive medicine is known for its innovations, and where there is innovation there is marketing and engagement with the doctors who are potential prescribers and users of those innovations. Financial connections between drug and device manufacturers with doctors have been extensively debated over the past decade. On one hand, relationships between doctors and industry could be considered synergistic by allowing the development of improved treatments. On the other hand, payment (and other benefits) from industry to doctors may subtly shift the main objective of the collaboration from patients' health to mutual benefits for both doctors and industry. Fertility patients can be considered 'vulnerable' as they face the multiple challenges of seeking to be parents, understanding complex and expensive fertility treatments that are by no means universally successful, and at the same time are under pressure because of their ever-increasing age. They are entitled to receive the most cost-effective treatments. We suggest that specialists in the field of reproductive medicine should be transparent about the receipt of financial benefits, including funding from industry, as it may be influencing both research outcomes and treatments that patients are offered. We also recommend that payments arising from industry-sponsored research should be centralized in institutional funds and not paid directly to researchers. And there should be transparency about the source and the purpose of the payment. Industry sponsorship of medical societies and their educational events should be kept to a minimum and declared quantitatively in societies' websites and scientific programme brochures. Industry sponsorship of scientific meetings should not include the right to host educational symposia or speakers within the programme. All speakers should declare their conflicts of interest (COIs) at their meetings. Guideline groups should require all members to declare their financial COIs before meeting and exclude or limit those members with COI. Governmental authorities should not allow continuing medical education credits to those educational events not complying with the above policies. The crucial role of medical journals as 'gatekeepers' for identifying 'science' must be reaffirmed.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for elective hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Elective hysterectomy is commonly performed for benign gynaecological conditions. Hysterectomy can be performed abdominally, laparoscopically, or vaginally, with or without laparoscopic assistance. Antibiotic prophylaxis consists of administration of antibiotics to reduce the rate of postoperative infection, which otherwise affects 40%-50% of women after vaginal hysterectomy, and more than 20% after abdominal hysterectomy. No Cochrane review has systematically assessed evidence on this topic. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases to November 2016 (including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), as well as clinical trials registers, conference abstracts, and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing use of antibiotics versus placebo or other antibiotics as prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane standard methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included in this review 37 RCTs, which performed 20 comparisons of various antibiotics versus placebo and versus one another (6079 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of study findings were risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, imprecision due to small samples and low event rates, and inadequate reporting of adverse effects. Any antibiotic versus placebo Vaginal hysterectomyModerate-quality evidence shows that women who received antibiotic prophylaxis had fewer total postoperative infections (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.40; five RCTs, N = 610; I2 = 85%), less urinary tract infection (UTI) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; eight RCTs, N = 1790; I2 = 44%), fewer pelvic infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.39; 11 RCTs, N = 2010; I2 = 57%), and fewer postoperative fevers (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.54; nine RCTs, N = 1879; I2 = 48%) than women who did not receive such prophylaxis. This suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 34% to 7% to 14%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.10; one RCT, N = 146; very low-quality evidence).Data were insufficient for comparison of adverse effects. Abdominal hysterectomyWomen who received antibiotic prophylaxis of any class had fewer total postoperative infections (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.38; one RCT, N = 345; low-quality evidence), abdominal wound infections (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92; 11 RCTs, N = 2434; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), UTIs (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.51; 11 RCTs, N = 2547; I2 = 26%; moderate-quality evidence), pelvic infections (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71; 11 RCTs, N = 1883; I2 = 11%; moderate-quality evidence), and postoperative fevers (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.70; 11 RCTs, N = 2581; I2 = 51%; moderate-quality evidence) than women who did not receive prophylaxis, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 16% to 1% to 6%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.69; two RCTs, N = 476; I2 = 29%; very low-quality evidence).It is unclear whether rates of adverse effects differed between groups (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.18; two RCTs, N = 430; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Head-to-head comparisons between antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified four comparisons: cephalosporin versus penicillin (two RCTs, N = 470), cephalosporin versus tetracycline (one RCT, N = 51), antiprotozoal versus lincosamide (one RCT, N = 80), and cephalosporin versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes, except that fewer cases of total postoperative infection and postoperative fever were reported in women who received cephalosporin than in those who received antiprotozoal.Only one comparison (cephalosporin vs penicillin; two RCTs, N = 451) yielded data on adverse effects and showed no differences between groups. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified only one comparison: cephalosporin versus penicillin (N = 220). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes. Adverse effects were not reported. Combined antibiotics versus single antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified three comparisons: cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus cephalosporin (one RCT, N = 78), cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78), and penicillin plus antiprotozoal versus penicillin (one RCT, N = 230). Data were unavailable for most outcomes, including adverse effects. We found no evidence of differences between groups, except that fewer women receiving cephalosporin with antiprotozoal received a diagnosis of total postoperative infection, UTI, or postoperative fever compared with women receiving antiprotozoal. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified one comparison (penicillin plus antiprotozoal vs penicillin only; one RCT, N = 230). Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. Adverse effects were not reported. Comparison of cephalosporins in different regimensSingle small trials addressed dose comparisons and provided no data for most outcomes, including adverse effects. Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. No trials compared route of administration.The quality of evidence for all head-to-head and dose comparisons was very low owing to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias related to poor reporting of methods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be effective in preventing postoperative infection in women undergoing elective vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy, regardless of the dose regimen. However, evidence is insufficient to show whether use of prophylactic antibiotics influences rates of adverse effects. Similarly, evidence is insufficient to show which (if any) individual antibiotic, dose regimen, or route of administration is safest and most effective. The most recent studies included in this review were 14 years old at the time of our search. Thus findings from included studies may not reflect current practice in perioperative and postoperative care and may not show locoregional antimicrobial resistance patterns.

Management of ovarian stimulation for IVF: narrative review of evidence provided for World Health Organization guidance.

In this paper, a review of evidence provided to the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline development, who prepare global guidance on the management of ovarian stimulation for women undergoing IVF, is presented. The purpose of ovarian stimulation is to facilitate retrieval of multiple oocytes during a single IVF cycle. Availability of multiple oocytes compensates for inefficiencies in subsequent stages of the cycle, which include oocyte maturation, IVF, embryo culture, embryo transfer, and implantation. Multiple embryos can be transferred in most women, and spare embryos can be frozen to allow for future chances of pregnancy without the need for repeated ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval. Our evidence synthesis team addressed 10 clinical questions on management of ovarian stimulation for IVF, prepared a narrative review of the evidence and drafted recommendations to be considered through WHO guideline development processes. Our main outcome measures were live birth, clinical pregnancy, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy (HT) is widely provided for control of menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of long-term HT (at least 1 year's duration) on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fracture and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women during and after cessation of treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to September 2016: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. We searched the registers of ongoing trials and reference lists provided in previous studies and systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised double-blinded studies of HT versus placebo, taken for at least 1 year by perimenopausal or postmenopausal women. HT included oestrogens, with or without progestogens, via the oral, transdermal, subcutaneous or intranasal route. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the quality of the evidence by using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 studies involving 43,637 women. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies (HERS 1998; WHI 1998). Most participants were postmenopausal American women with at least some degree of comorbidity, and mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. None of the studies focused on perimenopausal women.In relatively healthy postmenopausal women (i.e. generally fit, without overt disease), combined continuous HT increased the risk of a coronary event (after 1 year's use: from 2 per 1000 to between 3 and 7 per 1000), venous thromboembolism (after 1 year's use: from 2 per 1000 to between 4 and 11 per 1000), stroke (after 3 years' use: from 6 per 1000 to between 6 and 12 per 1000), breast cancer (after 5.6 years' use: from 19 per 1000 to between 20 and 30 per 1000), gallbladder disease (after 5.6 years' use: from 27 per 1000 to between 38 and 60 per 1000) and death from lung cancer (after 5.6 years' use plus 2.4 years' additional follow-up: from 5 per 1000 to between 6 and 13 per 1000).Oestrogen-only HT increased the risk of venous thromboembolism (after 1 to 2 years' use: from 2 per 1000 to 2 to 10 per 1000; after 7 years' use: from 16 per 1000 to 16 to 28 per 1000), stroke (after 7 years' use: from 24 per 1000 to between 25 and 40 per 1000) and gallbladder disease (after 7 years' use: from 27 per 1000 to between 38 and 60 per 1000) but reduced the risk of breast cancer (after 7 years' use: from 25 per 1000 to between 15 and 25 per 1000) and clinical fracture (after 7 years' use: from 141 per 1000 to between 92 and 113 per 1000) and did not increase the risk of coronary events at any follow-up time.Women over 65 years of age who were relatively healthy and taking continuous combined HT showed an increase in the incidence of dementia (after 4 years' use: from 9 per 1000 to 11 to 30 per 1000). Among women with cardiovascular disease, use of combined continuous HT significantly increased the risk of venous thromboembolism (at 1 year's use: from 3 per 1000 to between 3 and 29 per 1000). Women taking HT had a significantly decreased incidence of fracture with long-term use.Risk of fracture was the only outcome for which strong evidence showed clinical benefit derived from HT (after 5.6 years' use of combined HT: from 111 per 1000 to between 79 and 96 per 1000; after 7.1 years' use of oestrogen-only HT: from 141 per 1000 to between 92 and 113 per 1000). Researchers found no strong evidence that HT has a clinically meaningful impact on the incidence of colorectal cancer.One trial analysed subgroups of 2839 relatively healthy women 50 to 59 years of age who were taking combined continuous HT and 1637 who were taking oestrogen-only HT versus similar-sized placebo groups. The only significantly increased risk reported was for venous thromboembolism in women taking combined continuous HT: Their absolute risk remained low, at less than 1/500. However, other differences in risk cannot be excluded, as this study was not designed to have the power to detect differences between groups of women within 10 years of menopause.For most studies, risk of bias was low in most domains. The overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons was moderate. The main limitation in the quality of evidence was that only about 30% of women were 50 to 59 years old at baseline, which is the age at which women are most likely to consider HT for vasomotor symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Women with intolerable menopausal symptoms may wish to weigh the benefits of symptom relief against the small absolute risk of harm arising from short-term use of low-dose HT, provided they do not have specific contraindications. HT may be unsuitable for some women, including those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, increased risk of thromboembolic disease (such as those with obesity or a history of venous thrombosis) or increased risk of some types of cancer (such as breast cancer, in women with a uterus). The risk of endometrial cancer among women with a uterus taking oestrogen-only HT is well documented.HT is not indicated for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease or dementia, nor for prevention of deterioration of cognitive function in postmenopausal women. Although HT is considered effective for the prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis, it is generally recommended as an option only for women at significant risk for whom non-oestrogen therapies are unsuitable. Data are insufficient for assessment of the risk of long-term HT use in perimenopausal women and in postmenopausal women younger than 50 years of age.

Bioidentical hormones for women with vasomotor symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Various hormone therapies (HT) are available to treat menopausal vasomotor symptoms. Bioidentical hormones are chemically identical to those produced by the human body, and several types are well-tested and available on prescription. Many women have opted for bioidentical hormone therapy (BHT) on the assumption that it is safer than other forms of HT. We evaluated the evidence. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of bioidentical hormones compared to placebo or non-bioidentical hormones for the relief of vasomotor symptoms. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2015 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of articles retrieved. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bioidentical hormone therapy (BHT) versus placebo or non-bioidentical hormones. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Our primary outcome was vasomotor symptoms (hot flushes and night sweats). We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria (GRADE). MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs (5779 participants). Most studies (20/23) included only women with moderate to severe hot flushes. All studies compared unopposed 17 beta-estradiol (beta-estradiol) versus placebo or conjugated equine estrogens (CEE). None of the studies reported night sweats as a separate outcome. BHT patch versus placebo Frequency of hot flushesFour RCTs reported data suitable for analysis. There were fewer hot flushes in the BHT group, with a moderate to large effect size (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.53, four RCTs, 793 women, I(2) = 67%, low quality evidence). There was moderate heterogeneity, but a consistent direction of effect. Seven RCTs reported data unsuitable for analysis; all reported a benefit in the intervention group. Symptom intensityTwo RCTs reported analysable data. Measured on a 0-100 visual analogue scale (VAS), hot flush intensity was lower in the BHT group (MD -19.94 points, 95% CI -24.86 to -15.02, two RCTs, 393 women, I(2) = 54%, low quality evidence). There was moderate heterogeneity, but a consistent direction of effect. Adverse effectsAdverse events (such as headache, vaginal bleeding, breast tenderness and skin reactions) were more common in the intervention group (odds ratio (OR) 2.14, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.54, 9 RCTs, 1822 women, I(2) = 73%, low quality evidence). There was moderate heterogeneity, but a consistent direction of effect. In one study, five women in the intervention group developed endometrial hyperplasia. BHT gel versus placebo Hot flush frequencyThree RCTs reported this outcome, but the data were unsuitable for analysis. All reported a benefit in the BHT group. Adverse effectsAdverse events were more common in the BHT group (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.83, 3 RCTs, 1086 women, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence). Oral BHT versus placebo Hot flush frequencyTwo studies reported analysable data. There were fewer hot flushes in the BHT group, with a moderate to large effect size (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.57, two RCTs, 356 women, I(2) = 14%, low quality evidence). Adverse effectsThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.96, 3 RCTs, 433 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). Topical BHT emulsion versus placebo Hot flush frequencyOne study with data unsuitable for analysis reported a benefit in the intervention group. Adverse effectsThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.66, one RCT, 200 women, low quality evidence). Intranasal BHT versus placebo Hot flush frequencyOnly one study reported analysable data. There were fewer hot flushes per day in the BHT group (MD -3.04 95% CI -4.05 to -2.03, one study, 458 women, moderate quality evidence) Adverse effectsAdverse events (such as headache, breast tenderness, arthralgia and nausea) were more common in the intervention group (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.03, one RCT, 458 women, moderate quality evidence). Subgroup analysesSubgroup analyses by dose of BHT suggested that higher doses of BHT may be associated with more effectiveness but also higher risk of adverse effects. BHT patch versus 0.625 mg CEETwo RCTs reported this comparison, but the data were unsuitable for analysis. Hot flush frequencyBoth RCTs reported no evidence of a difference between the groups. Adverse effectsFindings were inconsistent. In one comparison (0.1 mg BHT versus CEE), breast pain and vaginal bleeding were more frequent in the BHT group. Oral BHT versus 0.625 mg CEE Hot flush frequencyOne study with data unsuitable for analysis reported no evidence of a difference between the groups. Adverse effectsThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.87, one RCT, 103 women, very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was low to moderate quality evidence that BHT in various forms and doses is more effective than placebo for treating moderate to severe menopausal hot flushes. There was low to moderate quality evidence of higher rates of adverse effects such as headache, vaginal bleeding, breast tenderness and skin reactions in the BHT group. There was some evidence to suggest that higher doses of BHT are associated with greater effectiveness but also with higher risk of adverse effects. Although all the included studies used unopposed estrogen, it is recommended best practice to use progestogen therapy in women with a uterus taking estrogen in order to avoid endometrial hyperplasia, regardless of the source of the estrogen. No data are yet available about the safety of BHT with regard to long-term outcomes such as heart attack, stroke and breast cancer.There was no good evidence of a difference in effectiveness between BHT and CEE, and findings with regard to adverse effects were inconsistent. The quality of the evidence was too low to reach any firm conclusions.The main limitations in the quality of the evidence were study risk of bias (mainly due to poor reporting of methods), imprecision and lack of data suitable for analysis.

High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival rates are disappointing for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. Autologous transplantation of bone marrow or peripheral stem cells (in which the woman is both donor and recipient) has been considered a promising technique because it permits use of much higher doses of chemotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of high-dose chemotherapy and autograft (either autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation) with conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015), EMBASE (1980 to October 2015), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Search Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov on the 21 October 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing high-dose chemotherapy and autograft (bone marrow transplant or stem cell rescue) versus chemotherapy without autograft for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected RCTs, independently extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We combined data using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes were survival rates, toxicity and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs of 5600 women randomised to receive high-dose chemotherapy and autograft (bone marrow transplant or stem cell rescue) versus chemotherapy without autograft for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. The studies were at low risk of bias in most areas.There is high-quality evidence that high-dose chemotherapy does not increase the likelihood of overall survival at any stage of follow-up (at three years: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10, 3 RCTs, 795 women, I² = 56%; at five years: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04, 9 RCTs, 3948 women, I² = 0%; at six years: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, 1 RCT, 511 women; at eight years: RR1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.43, 1 RCT, 344 women; at 12 years: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.42, 1 RCT, 382 women).There is high-quality evidence that high-dose chemotherapy improves the likelihood of event-free survival at three years (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.34, 3 RCTs, 795 women, I² = 56%) but this effect was no longer apparent at longer duration of follow-up (at five years: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.09, 9 RCTs, 3948 women, I² = 14%; at six years RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24, 1 RCT, 511 women; at eight years: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.64, 1 RCT, 344 women; at 12 years: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.45, 1 RCT, 382 women).Treatment-related deaths were much more frequent in the high-dose arm (RR 7.97, 95% CI 3.99 to 15.92, 14 RCTs, 5600 women, I² = 12%, high-quality evidence) and non-fatal morbidity was also more common and more severe in the high-dose group. There was little or no difference between the groups in the incidence of second cancers at four to nine years' median follow-up (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.73, 7 RCTs, 3423 women, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). Women in the high-dose group reported significantly worse quality-of-life scores immediately after treatment, but there were few statistically significant differences between the groups by one year.The primary studies were at low risk of bias in most areas, and the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods and rated as high quality for all comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence of increased treatment-related mortality and little or no increase in survival by using high-dose chemotherapy with autograft for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer.

Dietary supplements for dysmenorrhoea.

BACKGROUND: Dysmenorrhoea refers to painful menstrual cramps and is a common gynaecological complaint. Conventional treatments include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), which both reduce myometrial activity (contractions of the uterus). A suggested alternative approach is dietary supplements. We used the term 'dietary supplement' to include herbs or other botanical, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and amino acids. We excluded traditional Chinese medicines. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of dietary supplements for treating dysmenorrhoea. SEARCH METHODS: We searched sources including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO (all from inception to 23 March 2015), trial registries, and the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of dietary supplements for moderate or severe primary or secondary dysmenorrhoea. We excluded studies of women with an intrauterine device. Eligible comparators were other dietary supplements, placebo, no treatment, or conventional analgesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and adverse effects. We used a fixed-effect model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We presented data that were unsuitable for analysis either descriptively or in additional tables. We assessed the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs (3101 women). Most included studies were conducted amongst cohorts of students with primary dysmenorrhoea in their late teens or early twenties. Twenty-two studies were conducted in Iran and the rest were performed in other middle-income countries. Only one study addressed secondary dysmenorrhoea. Interventions included 12 different herbal medicines (German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla, M recutita, Chamomilla recutita), cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum, C. verum), Damask rose (Rosa damascena), dill (Anethum graveolens), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum), ginger (Zingiber officinale), guava (Psidium guajava), rhubarb (Rheum emodi), uzara (Xysmalobium undulatum), valerian (Valeriana officinalis), and zataria (Zataria multiflora)) and five non-herbal supplements (fish oil, melatonin, vitamins B1 and E, and zinc sulphate) in a variety of formulations and doses. Comparators included other supplements, placebo, no treatment, and NSAIDs.We judged all the evidence to be of low or very low quality. The main limitations were imprecision due to very small sample sizes, failure to report study methods, and inconsistency. For most comparisons there was only one included study, and very few studies reported adverse effects. Effectiveness of supplements for primary dysmenorrhoea We have presented pain scores (all on a visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 point scale) or rates of pain relief, or both, at the first post-treatment follow-up. Supplements versus placebo or no treatmentThere was no evidence of effectiveness for vitamin E (MD 0.00 points, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.34; two RCTs, 135 women).There was no consistent evidence of effectiveness for dill (MD -1.15 points, 95% CI -2.22 to -0.08, one RCT, 46 women), guava (MD 0.59, 95% CI -0.13 to 1.31; one RCT, 151 women); one RCT, 73 women), or fennel (MD -0.34 points, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.06; one RCT, 43 women).There was very limited evidence of effectiveness for fenugreek (MD -1.71 points, 95% CI -2.35 to -1.07; one RCT, 101 women), fish oil (MD 1.11 points, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77; one RCT, 120 women), fish oil plus vitamin B1 (MD -1.21 points, 95% CI -1.79 to -0.63; one RCT, 120 women), ginger (MD -1.55 points, 95% CI -2.43 to -0.68; three RCTs, 266 women; OR 5.44, 95% CI 1.80 to 16.46; one RCT, 69 women), valerian (MD -0.76 points, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.08; one RCT, 100 women), vitamin B1 alone (MD -2.70 points, 95% CI -3.32 to -2.08; one RCT, 120 women), zataria (OR 6.66, 95% CI 2.66 to 16.72; one RCT, 99 women), and zinc sulphate (MD -0.95 points, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.36; one RCT, 99 women).Data on chamomile and cinnamon versus placebo were unsuitable for analysis. Supplements versus NSAIDSThere was no evidence of any difference between NSAIDs and dill (MD 0.13 points, 95% CI -1.01 to 1.27; one RCT, 47 women), fennel (MD -0.70 points, 95% CI -1.81 to 0.41; one RCT, 59 women), guava (MD 1.19, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.96; one RCT, 155 women), rhubarb (MD -0.20 points, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.04; one RCT, 45 women), or valerian (MD points 0.62 , 95% CI 0.03 to 1.21; one RCT, 99 women),There was no consistent evidence of a difference between Damask rose and NSAIDs (MD -0.15 points, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.25; one RCT, 92 women).There was very limited evidence that chamomile was more effective than NSAIDs (MD -1.42 points, 95% CI -1.69 to -1.15; one RCT, 160 women). Supplements versus other supplementsThere was no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between ginger and zinc sulphate (MD 0.02 points, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.62; one RCT, 101 women). Vitamin B1 may be more effective than fish oil (MD -1.59 points, 95% CI -2.25 to -0.93; one RCT, 120 women). Effectiveness of supplements for secondary dysmenorrhoea There was no strong evidence of benefit for melatonin compared to placebo for dysmenorrhoea secondary to endometriosis (data were unsuitable for analysis). Safety of supplements Only four of the 27 included studies reported adverse effects in both treatment groups. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups but data were too scanty to reach any conclusions about safety. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no high quality evidence to support the effectiveness of any dietary supplement for dysmenorrhoea, and evidence of safety is lacking. However for several supplements there was some low quality evidence of effectiveness and more research is justified.

Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.

BACKGROUND: A wide variety of grafts have been introduced with the aim of improving the outcomes of traditional native tissue repair (colporrhaphy) for vaginal prolapse. OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh or biological grafts compared to native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ongoing trials registers, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (6 July 2015). We also contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of vaginal repair (mesh, biological graft, or native tissue). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery, and recurrent prolapse on examination. MAIN RESULTS: We included 37 RCTs (4023 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were poor reporting of study methods, inconsistency, and imprecision. Permanent mesh versus native tissue repairAwareness of prolapse at one to three years was less likely after mesh repair (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1614, I(2) = 3%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 19% of women are aware of prolapse after native tissue repair, between 10% and 15% will be aware of prolapse after permanent mesh repair.Rates of repeat surgery for prolapse were lower in the mesh group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88, 12 RCTs, n = 1675, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of repeat surgery for continence (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.83, 9 RCTs, n = 1284, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence). More women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for the combined outcome of prolapse, stress incontinence, or mesh exposure (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.81, 7 RCTs, n = 867, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 5% of women require repeat surgery after native tissue repair, between 7% and 18% in the permanent mesh group will do so. Eight per cent of women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for mesh exposure.Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely after mesh repair (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53, 21 RCTs, n = 2494, I(2) = 73%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 38% of women have recurrent prolapse after native tissue repair, between 11% and 20% will do so after mesh repair.Permanent mesh was associated with higher rates of de novo stress incontinence (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.82, 12 RCTs, 1512 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence) and bladder injury (RR 3.92, 95% CI 1.62 to 9.50, 11 RCTs, n = 1514, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of de novo dyspareunia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.47, 11 RCTs, n = 764, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence). Effects on quality of life were uncertain due to the very low-quality evidence. Absorbable mesh versus native tissue repairThere was very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of either form of repair at two years on the rate of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44, 1 RCT, n = 54).There was very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of either form of repair on the rate of repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.40, 1 RCT, n = 66).Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely in the mesh group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, 3 RCTs, n = 292, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence)The effect of either form of repair was uncertain for urinary outcomes, dyspareunia, and quality of life. Biological graft versus native tissue repairThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups at one to three years for the outcome awareness of prolapse (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43, 7 RCTs, n = 777, low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the outcome repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.44, 5 RCTs, n = 306, I(2) = 8%, low-quality evidence).The effect of either approach was very uncertain for recurrent prolapse (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.47, 7 RCTs, n = 587, I(2) = 59%, very low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for dyspareunia or quality of life outcomes (very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While transvaginal permanent mesh is associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, reoperation for prolapse, and prolapse on examination than native tissue repair, it is also associated with higher rates of reoperation for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, or mesh exposure and higher rates of bladder injury at surgery and de novo stress urinary incontinence. The risk-benefit profile means that transvaginal mesh has limited utility in primary surgery. While it is possible that in women with higher risk of recurrence the benefits may outweigh the risks, there is currently no evidence to support this position.Limited evidence suggests that absorbable mesh may reduce rates of recurrent prolapse on examination compared to native tissue repair, but there was insufficient evidence on absorbable mesh for us to draw any conclusions for other outcomes. There was also insufficient evidence for us to draw any conclusions regarding biological grafts compared to native tissue repair.In 2011, many transvaginal permanent meshes were voluntarily withdrawn from the market, and the newer, lightweight transvaginal permanent meshes still available have not been evaluated within a RCT. In the meantime, these newer transvaginal meshes should be utilised under the discretion of the ethics committee.

Long-acting follicle-stimulating hormone versus daily follicle-stimulating hormone for women undergoing assisted reproduction.

Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) given as a weekly injection in a medium dose is as safe and effective as a daily FSH injection for women undergoing assisted reproduction.

Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding significantly impairs the quality of life of many otherwise healthy women. Perception of heavy menstrual bleeding is subjective and management usually depends upon what symptoms are acceptable to the individual. Surgical options include conservative surgery (uterine resection or ablation) and hysterectomy. Medical treatment options include oral medication and a hormone-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2016: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registers (clinical trials.gov and ICTRP). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing conservative surgery or hysterectomy versus medical therapy (oral or intrauterine) for heavy menstrual bleeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted the data. Our primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding, satisfaction rate and adverse events. Where appropriate we pooled the data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a fixed-effect model. We assessed heterogeneity with the I(2) statistic and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 parallel-group RCTs (1289 women). Surgical interventions included hysterectomy and endometrial resection or ablation. Medical interventions included oral medication and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS). The overall quality of the evidence for different comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were lack of blinding, attrition and imprecision. Moreover, it was difficult to interpret long-term study findings as many women randomised to medical interventions subsequently underwent surgery. Surgery versus oral medicationSurgery (endometrial resection) was more effective in controlling bleeding at four months (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.64, one RCT, 186 women, moderate quality evidence) and also at two years (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.57, one RCT, 173 women, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34, one RCT, 140 women, very low quality evidence).Satisfaction with treatment was higher in the surgical group at two years (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, one RCT, 173 women, moderate quality evidence), but there was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, one RCT, 114 women, very low quality evidence). There were fewer adverse events in the surgical group at four months (RR 0.26, 95 CI 0.15 to 0.46, one RCT, 186 women). These findings require cautious interpretation, as 59% of women randomised to the oral medication group had had surgery within two years and 77% within five years. Surgery versus LNG-IUSWhen hysterectomy was compared with LNG-IUS, the hysterectomy group were more likely to have objective control of bleeding at one year (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19, one RCT, 223 women, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life between the groups at five or 10 years, but by 10 years 46% of women originally assigned to LNG-IUS had undergone hysterectomy. Adverse effects associated with hysterectomy included surgical complications such as bladder or bowel perforation and vesicovaginal fistula. Adverse effects associated with LNG-IUS were ongoing bleeding and hormonal symptoms.When conservative surgery was compared with LNG-IUS, at one year the surgical group were more likely to have subjective control of bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, five RCTs, 281 women, low quality evidence, I(2) = 15%). Satisfaction rates were higher in the surgical group at one year (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04, to 1.28, six RCTs, 442 women, I(2) = 27%), but this finding was sensitive to the choice of statistical model and use of a random-effects model showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between the groups. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in satisfaction rates at two years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, two RCTs, 117 women, I(2) = 1%).At one year there were fewer adverse events (such as bleeding and spotting) in the surgical group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.82, three RCTs, moderate quality evidence). It was unclear what proportion of women assigned to LNG-IUS underwent surgery over long-term follow-up, as there were few data beyond one year. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Surgery, especially hysterectomy, reduces menstrual bleeding more than medical treatment at one year. There is no conclusive evidence of a difference in satisfaction rates between surgery and LNG-IUS, though adverse effects such as bleeding and spotting are more likely to occur with LNG-IUS. Oral medication suits a minority of women in the long term, and the LNG-IUS device provides a better alternative to surgery in most cases. Although hysterectomy is a definitive treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, it can cause serious complications for a minority of women. Most women may be well advised to try a less radical treatment as first-line therapy. Both LNG-IUS and conservative surgery appear to be safe, acceptable and effective.

Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: As many as one in six couples will encounter problems with fertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after regular intercourse for 12 months. Increasingly, couples are turning to assisted reproductive technology (ART) for help with conceiving and ultimately giving birth to a healthy live baby of their own. Fertility treatments are complex, and each ART cycle consists of several steps. If one of the steps is incorrectly applied, the stakes are high as conception may not occur. With this in mind, it is important that each step of the ART cycle is supported by good evidence from well-designed studies. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on procedures and treatment options available to couples with subfertility undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART). METHODS: Published Cochrane systematic reviews of couples undergoing ART (in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection) were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation, for future inclusion.The outcomes of the overview were live birth (primary outcome), clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (secondary outcomes). Studies of intrauterine insemination and ovulation induction were excluded.Selection of systematic reviews, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken in duplicate. Review quality was assessed by using the AMSTAR tool. Reviews were organised by their relevance to specific stages in the ART cycle. Their findings were summarised in the text and data for each outcome were reported in 'Additional tables'. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-nine systematic reviews published in The Cochrane Library up to July 2015 were included. All were high quality. Thirty-two reviews identified interventions that were effective (n = 19) or promising (n = 13), 14 reviews identified interventions that were either ineffective (n = 2) or possibly ineffective (n = 12), and 13 reviews were unable to draw conclusions due to lack of evidence.An additional 11 protocols and five titles were identified for future inclusion in this overview. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This overview provides the most up to date evidence on ART cycles from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Fertility treatments are costly and the stakes are high. Using the best available evidence to optimise outcomes is best practice. The evidence from this overview could be used to develop clinical practice guidelines and protocols for use in daily clinical practice, in order to improve live birth rates and reduce rates of multiple pregnancy, cycle cancellation and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for dysmenorrhoea.

BACKGROUND: Dysmenorrhoea is a common gynaecological problem consisting of painful cramps accompanying menstruation, which in the absence of any underlying abnormality is known as primary dysmenorrhoea. Research has shown that women with dysmenorrhoea have high levels of prostaglandins, hormones known to cause cramping abdominal pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are drugs that act by blocking prostaglandin production. They inhibit the action of cyclooxygenase (COX), an enzyme responsible for the formation of prostaglandins. The COX enzyme exists in two forms, COX-1 and COX-2. Traditional NSAIDs are considered 'non-selective' because they inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes. More selective NSAIDs that solely target COX-2 enzymes (COX-2-specific inhibitors) were launched in 1999 with the aim of reducing side effects commonly reported in association with NSAIDs, such as indigestion, headaches and drowsiness. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of NSAIDs in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases in January 2015: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, November 2014 issue), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP). We checked the abstracts of major scientific meetings and the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparisons of NSAIDs versus placebo, other NSAIDs or paracetamol, when used to treat primary dysmenorrhoea. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data, calculating odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used inverse variance methods to combine data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 80 randomised controlled trials (5820 women). They compared 20 different NSAIDs (18 non-selective and two COX-2-specific) versus placebo, paracetamol or each other. NSAIDs versus placeboAmong women with primary dysmenorrhoea, NSAIDs were more effective for pain relief than placebo (OR 4.37, 95% CI 3.76 to 5.09; 35 RCTs, I(2) = 53%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if 18% of women taking placebo achieve moderate or excellent pain relief, between 45% and 53% taking NSAIDs will do so.However, NSAIDs were associated with more adverse effects (overall adverse effects: OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.51, 25 RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence; gastrointestinal adverse effects: OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.23, 14 RCTs, I(2) = 30%; neurological adverse effects: OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.53, seven RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if 10% of women taking placebo experience side effects, between 11% and 14% of women taking NSAIDs will do so. NSAIDs versus other NSAIDsWhen NSAIDs were compared with each other there was little evidence of the superiority of any individual NSAID for either pain relief or safety. However, the available evidence had little power to detect such differences, as most individual comparisons were based on very few small trials. Non-selective NSAIDs versus COX-2-specific selectorsOnly two of the included studies utilised COX-2-specific inhibitors (etoricoxib and celecoxib). There was no evidence that COX-2-specific inhibitors were more effective or tolerable for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea than traditional NSAIDs; however data were very scanty. NSAIDs versus paracetamolNSAIDs appeared to be more effective for pain relief than paracetamol (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.43, three RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference with regard to adverse effects, though data were very scanty.Most of the studies were commercially funded (59%); a further 31% failed to state their source of funding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs appear to be a very effective treatment for dysmenorrhoea, though women using them need to be aware of the substantial risk of adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine which (if any) individual NSAID is the safest and most effective for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea. We rated the quality of the evidence as low for most comparisons, mainly due to poor reporting of study methods.

Metformin treatment before and during in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: summary of a Cochrane review.

In women with polycystic ovary syndrome, metformin treatment before or during assisted reproductive technology cycles increases clinical pregnancy rates and decreases the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. However, there is no conclusive evidence of a benefit in live birth rates.

Aromatase inhibitors for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome: summary of a Cochrane review.

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common cause of anovulatory subfertility. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of aromatase inhibitors compared with other methods of ovulation induction in women with anovulatory PCOS.