Oral contraceptive pill for primary dysmenorrhoea

Effectiveness and Safety of IVF Add-Ons: A Meta-Review of 10 Common IVF Add-Ons

Lensen SF et al., 2025 · SSRN

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

Duffy JMN et al., 2020 · Human Reproduction · Free full text on PubMed Central

Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). MAIN The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the SPIRIT statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set.

Combination of the non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of endometriosis

Nisenblat V et al., 2016 · The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · Free full text on PubMed Central

About 10% of women of reproductive age suffer from endometriosis, a costly chronic disease causing pelvic pain and subfertility. Laparoscopy is the gold standard diagnostic test for endometriosis, but is expensive and carries surgical risks. Currently, there are no non-invasive tests available in clinical practice to accurately diagnose endometriosis. This review assessed the diagnostic accuracy of combinations of different non-invasive testing modalities for endometriosis and provided a summary of all the reviews in the non-invasive tests for endometriosis series. To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of any combination of non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis (peritoneal and/or ovarian or deep infiltrating) compared to surgical diagnosis as a reference standard. The combined tests were evaluated as replacement tests for diagnostic surgery and triage tests to assist decision-making to undertake diagnostic surgery for endometriosis. We did not restrict the searches to particular study designs, language or publication dates. We searched CENTRAL to July 2015, MEDLINE and EMBASE to May 2015, as well as the following databases to April 2015: CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, LILACS, OAIster, TRIP, ClinicalTrials.gov, DARE and PubMed. We considered published, peer-reviewed, randomised controlled or cross-sectional studies of any size, including prospectively collected samples from any population of women of reproductive age suspected of having one or more of the following target conditions: ovarian, peritoneal or deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). We included studies comparing the diagnostic test accuracy of a combination of several testing modalities with the findings of surgical visualisation of endometriotic lesions. Three review authors independently collected and performed a quality assessment of the data from each study by using the QUADAS-2 tool. For each test, the data were classified as positive or negative for the surgical detection of endometriosis and sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated. The bivariate model was planned to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity whenever sufficient data were available. The predetermined criteria for a clinically useful test to replace diagnostic surgery were a sensitivity of 0.94 and a specificity of 0.79 to detect endometriosis. We set the criteria for triage tests at a sensitivity of 0.95 and above and a specificity of 0.50 and above, which 'rules out' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a negative test result (SnOUT test), or a sensitivity of 0.50 and above and a specificity of 0.95 and above, which 'rules in' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a positive result (SpIN test). Eleven eligible studies included 1339 participants. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. Seven studies evaluated pelvic endometriosis, one study considered DIE and/or ovarian endometrioma, two studies differentiated endometrioma from other ovarian cysts and one study addressed mapping DIE at specific anatomical sites. Fifteen different diagnostic combinations were assessed, including blood, urinary or endometrial biomarkers, transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and clinical history or examination. We did not pool estimates of sensitivity and specificity, as each study analysed independent combinations of the non-invasive tests.Tests that met the criteria for a replacement test were: a combination of serum IL-6 (cut-off >15.4 pg/ml) and endometrial PGP 9.5 for pelvic endometriosis (sensitivity 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.00), specificity 0.93 (95% CI, 0.80, 0.98) and the combination of vaginal examination and transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) for rectal endometriosis (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.99), specificity 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00)). Tests that met the criteria for SpIN triage tests for pelvic endometriosis were: 1. a multiplication of urine vitamin-D-binding protein (VDBP) and serum CA-125 (cut-off >2755) (sensitivity 0.74 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.84), specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.00)) and 2. a combination of history (length of menses), serum CA-125 (cut-off >35 U/ml) and endometrial leukocytes (sensitivity 0.61 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.69), specificity 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.98)). For endometrioma, the following combinations qualified as SpIN test: 1. TVUS and either serum CA-125 (cut-off ≥25 U/ml) or CA 19.9 (cut-off ≥12 U/ml) (sensitivity 0.79 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.91), specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00)); 2. TVUS and serum CA 19.9 (cut-off ≥12 U/ml) (sensitivity 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.70), specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.0)); 3-4. TVUS and serum CA-125 (cut-off ≥20 U/ml or cut-off ≥25 U/ml) (sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.85), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99)); 5. TVUS and serum CA-125 (cut-off ≥35 U/ml) (sensitivity 0.52 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.71), specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0

Blood biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis

Nisenblat V et al., 2016 · The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · Free full text on PubMed Central

About 10% of reproductive-aged women suffer from endometriosis, a costly chronic disease causing pelvic pain and subfertility. Laparoscopy is the gold standard diagnostic test for endometriosis, but is expensive and carries surgical risks. Currently, there are no non-invasive or minimally invasive tests available in clinical practice to accurately diagnose endometriosis. Although other reviews have assessed the ability of blood tests to diagnose endometriosis, this is the first review to use Cochrane methods, providing an update on the rapidly expanding literature in this field. To evaluate blood biomarkers as replacement tests for diagnostic surgery and as triage tests to inform decisions on surgery for endometriosis. Specific objectives include:1. To provide summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of blood biomarkers for the diagnosis of peritoneal, ovarian and deep infiltrating pelvic endometriosis, compared to surgical diagnosis as a reference standard.2. To assess the diagnostic utility of biomarkers that could differentiate ovarian endometrioma from other ovarian masses. We did not restrict the searches to particular study designs, language or publication dates. We searched CENTRAL to July 2015, MEDLINE and EMBASE to May 2015, as well as these databases to 20 April 2015: CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, LILACS, OAIster, TRIP, ClinicalTrials.gov, DARE and PubMed. We considered published, peer-reviewed, randomised controlled or cross-sectional studies of any size, including prospectively collected samples from any population of reproductive-aged women suspected of having one or more of the following target conditions: ovarian, peritoneal or deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). We included studies comparing the diagnostic test accuracy of one or more blood biomarkers with the findings of surgical visualisation of endometriotic lesions. Two authors independently collected and performed a quality assessment of data from each study. For each diagnostic test, we classified the data as positive or negative for the surgical detection of endometriosis, and we calculated sensitivity and specificity estimates. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity whenever sufficient datasets were available. The predetermined criteria for a clinically useful blood test to replace diagnostic surgery were a sensitivity of 0.94 and a specificity of 0.79 to detect endometriosis. We set the criteria for triage tests at a sensitivity of ≥ 0.95 and a specificity of ≥ 0.50, which 'rules out' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a negative test result (SnOUT test), or a sensitivity of ≥ 0.50 and a specificity of ≥ 0.95, which 'rules in' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a positive result (SpIN test). We included 141 studies that involved 15,141 participants and evaluated 122 blood biomarkers. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. Studies evaluated the blood biomarkers either in a specific phase of the menstrual cycle or irrespective of the cycle phase, and they tested for them in serum, plasma or whole blood. Included women were a selected population with a high frequency of endometriosis (10% to 85%), in which surgery was indicated for endometriosis, infertility work-up or ovarian mass. Seventy studies evaluated the diagnostic performance of 47 blood biomarkers for endometriosis (44 single-marker tests and 30 combined tests of two to six blood biomarkers). These were angiogenesis/growth factors, apoptosis markers, cell adhesion molecules, high-throughput markers, hormonal markers, immune system/inflammatory markers, oxidative stress markers, microRNAs, tumour markers and other proteins. Most of these biomarkers were assessed in small individual studies, often using different cut-off thresholds, and we could only perform meta-analyses on the data sets for anti-endometrial antibodies, interleukin-6 (IL-6), cancer antigen-19.9 (CA-19.9) and CA-125. Diagnostic estimates varied significantly between studies for each of these biomarkers, and CA-125 was the only marker with sufficient data to reliably assess sources of heterogeneity.The mean sensitivities and specificities of anti-endometrial antibodies (4 studies, 759 women) were 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.87) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.00). For IL-6, with a cut-off value of > 1.90 to 2.00 pg/ml (3 studies, 309 women), sensitivity was 0.63 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.75) and specificity was 0.69 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.82). For CA-19.9, with a cut-off value of > 37.0 IU/ml (3 studies, 330 women), sensitivity was 0.36 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.45) and specificity was 0.87 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.99).Studies assessed CA-125 at different thresholds, demonstrating the following mean sensitivities and specificities: for cut-off > 10.0 to 14.7 U/ml: 0.70 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.77) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.82); for cut-off >

Efficacy of Ginger for Alleviating the Symptoms of Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Daily JW et al., 2015 · Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.)

There has been no attempt to date to synthesize the available evidence for the efficacy of ginger for treating primary dysmenorrhea. This systematic review evaluates the current evidence for the effectiveness of ginger for treating primary dysmenorrhea. Literature searches were conducted using 12 electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Korean databases, Chinese medical databases, and Indian scientific database. Search terms used were: "ginger" or "Zingiber officinale" and "dysmenorrhea" and "pain." Studies using ginger as a treatment of primary dysmenorrhea were considered for inclusion. The major outcome of primary dysmenorrhea was assessed using a pain visual analogue score (PVAS). Initial searches yielded 29 articles. Of these original results, seven met specific selection criteria. Four of the RCTs compared the therapeutic efficacy of ginger with a placebo during the first 3-4 days of the menstrual cycle and were included in the meta analysis. The meta-analysis of these data showed a significant effect of ginger in reducing PVAS in subjects having primary dysmenorrhea (risk ratio, -1.85; 95% CI of -2.87, -0.84, P = 0.0003). Six RCTs out of 7 exhibited low to moderate of risk of bias. Collectively these RCTs provide suggestive evidence for the effectiveness of 750-2000 mg ginger powder during the first 3-4 days of menstrual cycle for primary dysmenorrhea.

Comparative evaluation of low-level light therapy and ethinyl estradiol and desogestrel combined oral contraceptive for clinical efficacy and regulation of serum biochemical parameters in primary dysmenorrhoea: a prospective randomised multicentre trial

Zhu S et al., 2022 · Lasers in medical science

We aimed to compare low-level light therapy with oral contraceptive pills for pain relief and serum levels of nitric oxide and prostaglandin E2 in patients with primary dysmenorrhoea. This was a randomised, active comparator-controlled, multicentre study. In total, 156 patients were randomised to receive either low-level light therapy with light-emitting diodes (LED) applying on two acupoints, namely, conception vessel 4 (CV4) and CV6 or conventional treatment with oral Marvelon, 30 µg of ethinyl estradiol and 150 µg of desogestrel (DSG/EE), for three consecutive menstrual cycles. The main outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved 33% or more decrease in pain scores measured using the visual analogue scale, which was deemed as efficient rate. Absolute changes in visual analogue scale scores, serum levels of nitric oxide (assessed by nitrites and nitrates reflecting nitric oxide metabolism) and prostaglandin E2 (measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) were the secondary outcomes. A total of 135 patients completed the study (73 in the light therapy group and 62 in the DSG/EE group). The efficient rate at the end of treatment was comparable between the groups (73.6% vs. 85.7%, χ2 = 2.994, p = 0.084). A more significant reduction in pain scores was observed in the DSG/EE group (39.25% vs. 59.52%, p < 0.001). Serum levels of prostaglandin E2 significantly decreased from baseline but did not differ between groups (- 109.57 ± 3.99 pg/mL vs. - 118.11 ± 12.93 pg/mL, p = 0.51). Nitric oxide concentration remained stable in both groups. Low-level light therapy with LED-based device applied on acupuncture points CV4 and CV6 demonstrated a similar level of dysmenorrhoea pain reduction to DSG/EE combined contraceptive. Both treatment modalities achieved clinically meaningful levels of pain reduction. Registration on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03953716, Date: April 04, 2019.

Oral contraceptives and endometriosis: the past use of oral contraceptives for treating severe primary dysmenorrhea is associated with endometriosis, especially deep infiltrating endometriosis

Chapron C et al., 2011 · Human reproduction (Oxford, England)

The relationship between the use of oral contraception (OC) and endometriosis remains controversial. We therefore compared various characteristics of OC use and the surgical diagnosis of endometriosis histologically graded as superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SUP), ovarian endometrioma (OMA) or deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). This cross-sectional study included 566 patients without visible endometriosis at surgery as controls, and 410 patients with histologically proven endometriosis, categorized by their worst lesions as SUP n = 47, OMA n = 120 and DIE n = 243. Personal data, including on OC use, were prospectively collected during standardized interviews. Statistical analysis was performed using unconditional logistic regression. Past OC users had an increased incidence of endometriosis (adjusted odd ratios (OR) = 2.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74-5.12, P = 0.002) of any revised American Fertility Society stage. Women who had previously used OC for severe primary dysmenorrhea were even more frequently diagnosed with endometriosis (adjusted OR = 5.6, 95% CI 3.2-9.8), especially for DIE (adjusted OR = 16.2, 95% CI 7.8-35.3). Women who had previously used OC for other reasons also had an increased risk of endometriosis, but to a lesser extent (adjusted OR = 2.6, 95% CI 1.8-4.1). The age at which OC was initiated, duration of OC use and free interval from last OC use were not significantly different between control and endometriosis women, irrespective of histological grading. Current OC users did not show an increased prevalence of endometriosis (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 0.6-2.52). Our data indicate that a history of OC use for severe primary dysmenorrhea is associated with surgical diagnosis of endometriosis, especially DIE, later in life. However, this does not necessarily mean that use of OC increases the risk of developing endometriosis. Past use of OC for primary dysmenorrhea may serve as a marker for women with endometriosis and DIE.

What we know about primary dysmenorrhea today: a critical review

Iacovides S et al., 2015 · Human reproduction update

Primary dysmenorrhea, or painful menstruation in the absence of pelvic pathology, is a common, and often debilitating, gynecological condition that affects between 45 and 95% of menstruating women. Despite the high prevalence, dysmenorrhea is often poorly treated, and even disregarded, by health professionals, pain researchers, and the women themselves, who may accept it as a normal part of the menstrual cycle. This review reports on current knowledge, particularly with regards to the impact and consequences of recurrent menstrual pain on pain sensitivity, mood, quality of life and sleep in women with primary dysmenorrhea. Comprehensive literature searches on primary dysmenorrhea were performed using the electronic databases PubMed, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Full-text manuscripts published between the years 1944 and 2015 were reviewed for relevancy and reference lists were cross-checked for additional relevant studies. In combination with the word 'dysmenorrhea' one or more of the following search terms were used to obtain articles published in peer-reviewed journals only: pain, risk factors, etiology, experimental pain, clinical pain, adenomyosis, chronic pain, women, menstrual cycle, hyperalgesia, pain threshold, pain tolerance, pain sensitivity, pain reactivity, pain perception, central sensitization, quality of life, sleep, treatment, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Women with dysmenorrhea, compared with women without dysmenorrhea, have greater sensitivity to experimental pain both within and outside areas of referred menstrual pain. Importantly, the enhanced pain sensitivity is evident even in phases of the menstrual cycle when women are not experiencing menstrual pain, illustrating that long-term differences in pain perception extend outside of the painful menstruation phase. This enhanced pain sensitivity may increase susceptibility to other chronic pain conditions in later life; dysmenorrhea is a risk factor for fibromyalgia. Further, dysmenorrheic pain has an immediate negative impact on quality of life, for up to a few days every month. Women with primary dysmenorrhea have a significantly reduced quality of life, poorer mood and poorer sleep quality during menstruation compared with their pain-free follicular phase, and compared with the menstruation phase of pain-free control women. The prescribed first-line therapy for menstrual pain remains non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, which are effective in relieving daytime and night-time pain. Further study is needed to determine whether effectively blocking dysmenorrheic pain ameliorates risk for the development of chronic pain disorders and to explore whether it is possible to prevent the development-and not just treat-severe dysmenorrheic pain in adolescent girls. In conclusion, we demonstrate the extensive multi-factorial impact of dysmenorrhea and we encourage and direct researchers to necessary future studies.