Phytoestrogens for menopausal vasomotor symptoms

BACKGROUND

Vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flushes and night sweats, are very common during the menopausal transition. Hormone therapy has traditionally been used as a highly effective treatment, but concerns about increased risk of some chronic diseases have markedly increased the interest of women in alternative treatments. Some of the most popular of these treatments are foods or supplements enriched with phytoestrogens-plant-derived chemicals that have estrogenic action.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, safety and acceptability of food products, extracts and dietary supplements containing high levels of phytoestrogens when compared with no treatment, placebo or hormone therapy for the amelioration of vasomotor menopausal symptoms (such as hot flushes and night sweats) in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches targeted the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of randomised trials (29 July 2013), the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 29 July 2013), MEDLINE (inception to 29 July 2013), EMBASE (inception to 29 July 2013), AMED (1985 to 29 July 2013), PsycINFO (inception to 29 July 2013) and CINAHL (inception to 29 July 2013). Attempts were made to access grey literature by sending letters to pharmaceutical companies and performing searches of ongoing trial registers. Reference lists of included trials were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomised, included perimenopausal or postmenopausal participants with vasomotor symptoms (hot flushes or night sweats), lasted at least 12 weeks and provided interventions such as foods or supplements with high levels of phytoestrogens (not combined with other herbal treatments). Trials that included women who had breast cancer or a history of breast cancer were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Selection of trials, extraction of data and assessment of quality were undertaken by at least two review authors. Most trials were too dissimilar for their results to be combined in a meta-analysis, so these findings are provided in narrative 'Summary of results' tables. Studies were grouped into broad categories: dietary soy, soy extracts, red clover extracts, genistein extracts and other types of phytoestrogens. Five trials used Promensil, a red clover extract; results of these trials were combined in a meta-analysis, and summary effect measures were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 43 randomised controlled trials (4,364 participants) were included in this review. Very few trials provided data suitable for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Among the five trials that yielded data assessing the daily frequency of hot flushes suitable for pooling, no significant difference overall was noted in the incidence of hot flushes between participants taking Promensil (a red clover extract) and those given placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.95 to 0.10, I(2) = 31%). No evidence indicated a difference in percentage reduction in hot flushes in two trials between Promensil and placebo (MD 20.15, 95% CI -12.08 to 52.38, I(2) = 82%). Four trials that were not combined in meta-analyses suggested that extracts with high (> 30 mg/d) levels of genistein consistently reduced the frequency of hot flushes. Individual results from the remaining trials were compared in broad subgroups such as dietary soy, soy extracts and other types of phytoestrogens that could not be combined. Some of these trials found that phytoestrogen treatments alleviated the frequency and severity of hot flushes and night sweats when compared with placebo, but many trials were small and were determined to be at high risk of bias. A strong placebo effect was noted in most trials, with a reduction in frequency ranging from 1% to 59% with placebo. No indication suggested that discrepant results were due to the amount of isoflavone in the active treatment arm, the severity of vasomotor symptoms or trial quality factors. Also, no evidence indicated that these treatments caused oestrogenic stimulation of the endometrium or the vagina or other adverse effects when used for up to two years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No conclusive evidence shows that phytoestrogen supplements effectively reduce the frequency or severity of hot flushes and night sweats in perimenopausal or postmenopausal women, although benefits derived from concentrates of genistein should be further investigated.

Intrauterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion for non-tubal infertility

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a common treatment for couples with subfertility that does not involve the fallopian tubes. It is used to bring the sperm close to the released oocyte. Another method of introducing sperm is fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP). Fallopian tube sperm perfusion ensures the presence of higher sperm densities in the fallopian tubes at the time of ovulation than does standard IUI. These treatments are often used in combination with ovarian hyperstimulation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare intrauterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility, for live birth and pregnancy outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE from inception to September 2013. We also searched study reference lists and trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IUI with FSP in couples with non-tubal subfertility were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted the data. If studies were sufficiently similar, data were combined using a fixed-effect model to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A random-effects model was used if substantial statistical heterogeneity was detected. Studies that included participants with unexplained or mixed (non-tubal) subfertility were analysed separately from studies restricted to participants with mild or moderate male factor subfertility. The overall quality of evidence for the main outcomes was summarised using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 16 RCTs. Fourteen RCTs (1745 women) were included in the meta-analysis. Only three studies reported live birth per couple. No evidence of a statistically significant difference was noted between IUI and FSP in live birth (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.49, three RCTs, 633 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.12, 14 RCTs, 1745 women, I(2) = 52%, low-quality evidence). These findings suggest that for a couple with a 13% chance of live birth using FSP, the chance when using IUI will be between 8% and 19%; and that for a couple with a 19% chance of pregnancy using FSP, the chance of pregnancy when using IUI will be between 10% and 20%. Nor was evidence found of a statistically significant difference between IUI and FSP in per-pregnancy of multiple pregnancy (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.07, eight RCTs, 197 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence), miscarriage (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.53, seven RCTs, 199 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence) or ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 6.88, four RCTs, 111 women, I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). Substantial heterogeneity was noted for the outcome of clinical pregnancy (I(2) = 54%), for which no clear explanation was provided.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently no clear evidence suggests any difference between IUI and FSP with respect to their effectiveness and safety for treating couples with non-tubal subfertility. However, a high level of uncertainty is evident in the findings, and additional research may be useful.

Twenty years of Cochrane reviews in menstrual disorders and subfertility

The past three decades have seen considerable change in the understanding of clinical research methods. There has been an acceptance that RCTs are the best way of establishing treatment effectiveness and a recognition that, while single studies are useful, pooling knowledge from a complete body of work is likely to provide the best evidence. Advances in methodology have been mirrored by the many advances in the field of reproductive medicine, such as assisted reproduction, assessment of male fertility, ovulation induction and laparoscopic surgery. Together, they have led to welcome improvements in the outcomes of fertility treatments. In particular, systematic reviews have become important tools enabling clinicians and patients to make health-care decisions based on evidence from all the available high-quality studies. The move towards identifying and aggregating the highest quality evidence has been led by the Cochrane Collaboration, which this year celebrates 20 years of preparing and publishing systematic reviews. This paper outlines the achievements, progress and challenges of this enterprise to date, with a particular focus on systematic reviews of reproductive medicine.

Endometrial resection and ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a significant health problem in premenopausal women; it can reduce their quality of life and cause anaemia. First-line therapy has traditionally been medical therapy but this is frequently ineffective. On the other hand, hysterectomy is obviously 100% effective in stopping bleeding but is more costly and can cause severe complications. Endometrial ablation is less invasive and preserves the uterus, although long-term studies have found that the costs of ablative surgery approach the cost of hysterectomy due to the requirement for repeat procedures. A large number of techniques have been developed to 'ablate' (remove) the lining of the endometrium. The gold standard techniques (laser, transcervical resection of the endometrium and rollerball) require visualisation of the uterus with a hysteroscope and, although safe, require skilled surgeons. A number of newer techniques have recently been developed, most of which are less time consuming. However, hysteroscopy may still be required as part of the ablative techniques and some of these techniques must be considered to be still under development, requiring refinement and investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and acceptability of of endometrial destruction techniques to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in premenopausal women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo, (from inception to June 2013). We also searched trials registers, other sources of unpublished or grey literature and reference lists of retrieved studies, and made contact with experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies that manufacture ablation devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different endometrial ablation techniques in women with a complaint of HMB without uterine pathology were eligible. The outcomes included reduction of HMB, improvement in quality of life, operative outcomes, satisfaction with the outcome, complications and need for further surgery or hysterectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for risk of bias and extracted data. Attempts were made to contact authors for clarification of data in some trials. Adverse events were only assessed if they were separately measured in the included trials. Comparisons were made with individual techniques and an overall comparison between first and second-generation ablation methods was also undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty five trials (4040 women) with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 372 were included in the review. A majority of the trials had a specified method of randomisation, adequate description of dropouts and no evidence of selective reporting. Less than half had adequate allocation concealment and most were unblinded.There was insufficient evidence to suggest superiority of a particular technique in the pairwise comparisons between individual ablation and resection methods.In the overall comparison of the newer 'blind' techniques (second-generation) with the gold standard hysteroscopic ablative techniques (first-generation) there was no evidence of overall differences in the improvement in HMB (12 RCTs) or patient satisfaction (11 RCTs).Surgery was an average of 15 minutes shorter (mean difference (MD) 14.9, 95% CI 10.1 to 19.7, 9 RCTs; low quality evidence), local anaesthesia was more likely to be employed (relative risk (RR) 2.8, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.4, 6 RCTs; low quality evidence) and equipment failure was more likely (RR 4.3, 95% CI 1.5 to 12.4, 3 RCTs; moderate quality evidence) with second-generation ablation. Women undergoing newer (second-generation) ablative procedures were less likely to have fluid overload, uterine perforation, cervical lacerations and hematometra than women undergoing the more traditional type of ablation and resection techniques (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.79, 4 RCTs; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.0, 8 RCTs; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.61, 8 RCTs; and RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.85, 5 RCTs; all moderate quality evidence, respectively). However, women were more likely to have nausea and vomiting and uterine cramping (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.0, 4 RCTs; and RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.4, 2 RCTs; both moderate quality evidence, respectively). The risk of requiring either further surgery of any kind or hysterectomy specifically was reduced with second-generation ablative methods compared to first-generation ablation up to 10 years after surgery (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.99, 1 RCT; and RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.96, 1 RCT; both moderate quality evidence, respectively) but not at earlier follow up. Additional research is required to confirm this finding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial ablation techniques offer a less invasive surgical alternative to hysterectomy. The rapid development of a number of new methods of endometrial destruction has made systematic comparisons between individual methods and with the 'gold standard' first-generation techniques difficult. Most of the newer techniques are technically easier to perform than traditional hysteroscopy-based methods but technical difficulties with the new equipment need to be addressed. Overall, the existing evidence suggests that success, satisfaction rates and complication profiles of newer techniques of ablation compare favourably with hysteroscopic techniques.

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-four systematic reviews published in The Cochrane Library were included. All were high quality. Thirty reviews identified interventions that were effective (n = 18) or promising (n = 12), 13 reviews identified interventions that were either ineffective (n = 3) or possibly ineffective (n=10), and 11 reviews were unable to draw conclusions due to lack of evidence.An additional 15 protocols and two 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.

Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection

BACKGROUND

Multiple embryo transfer during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) increases multiple pregnancy rates causing maternal and perinatal morbidity. Single embryo transfer is now being seriously considered as a means of minimising the risk of multiple pregnancy. However, this needs to be balanced against the risk of jeopardising the overall live birth rate.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different policies for the number of embryos transferred in couples who undergo assisted reproductive technology (ART).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE, from inception to July 2013. We handsearched reference lists of articles, trial registers and relevant conference proceedings and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different policies for the number of embryos transferred following IVF or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in subfertile women. Studies of fresh or frozen and thawed transfer of one, two, three or four embryos at cleavage or blastocyst stage were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data. The overall quality of the evidence was graded in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs were included in the review (2165 women). Thirteen compared cleavage-stage transfers (2017 women) and two compared blastocyst transfers (148 women): one study compared both. No studies compared repeated multiple versus repeated single embryo transfer (SET). DET versus repeated SETDET was compared with repeated SET in three studies of cleavage-stage transfer. In these studies the SET group received either two cycles of fresh SET (one study) or one cycle of fresh SET followed by one frozen SET in a natural or hormone-stimulated cycle (two studies). When these three studies were pooled, the cumulative live birth rate after one cycle of DET was not significantly different from the rate after repeated SET (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.62, three studies, n=811, I(2)=0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 40% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the chance following repeated SET would be between 30% and 42%. The multiple pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the DET group (OR 30.54, 95% CI 7.46 to 124.95, three RCTs, n = 811, I(2) = 23%, low quality evidence), suggesting that for a woman with a 15% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following repeated SET would be between 0% and 2%. Single-cycle DET versus single-cycle SETA single cycle of DET was compared with a single cycle of SET in 10 studies, nine comparing cleavage-stage transfers and two comparing blastocyst-stage transfers. When all studies were pooled the live birth rate was significantly higher in the DET group (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.68 to 2.57, nine studies, n = 1564, I(2) = 0%, high quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 40% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the chance following a single cycle of SET would be between 22% and 30%. The multiple pregnancy rate was also significantly higher in the DET group (OR 8.47, 95% CI 4.97 to 14.43, 10 studies, n = 1612, I(2) = 45%, high quality evidence), suggesting that for a woman with a 15% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following a single cycle of SET would be between 1% and 4%. The heterogeneity for this analysis was attributable to a study with a high rate of cross-over between treatment arms. Other comparisons Other fresh cycle comparisons were evaluated in three studies which compared DET versus transfer of three or four embryos. Live birth rates did not differ significantly between the groups for any comparison, but there was a significantly lower multiple pregnancy rate in the DET group than in the three embryo transfer (TET) group (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.99, two studies, n = 343, I(2) = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In a single fresh IVF cycle, single embryo transfer is associated with a lower live birth rate than double embryo transfer. However, there is no evidence of a significant difference in the cumulative live birth rate when a single cycle of double embryo transfer is compared with repeated SET (either two cycles of fresh SET or one cycle of fresh SET followed by one frozen SET in a natural or hormone-stimulated cycle). Single embryo transfer is associated with much lower rates of multiple pregnancy than other embryo transfer policies. A policy of repeated SET may minimise the risk of multiple pregnancy in couples undergoing ART without substantially reducing the likelihood of achieving a live birth. Most of the evidence currently available concerns younger women with a good prognosis.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for premenstrual syndrome

BACKGROUND

Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common cause of physical, psychological and social problems in women of reproductive age. The key characteristic of PMS is the timing of symptoms, which occur only during the two weeks leading up to menstruation (the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are increasingly used as first line therapy for PMS. SSRIs can be taken either in the luteal phase or else continuously (every day). SSRIs are generally considered to be effective for reducing premenstrual symptoms but they can cause adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SSRIs for treating premenstrual syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were undertaken in the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (February 2013). Where insufficient data were presented in a report, attempts were made to contact the original authors for further details.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were considered in which women with a prospective diagnosis of PMS, PMDD or late luteal phase dysphoric disorder (LPDD) were randomised to receive SSRIs or placebo for the treatment of premenstrual syndrome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed eligible studies for risk of bias, and extracted data on premenstrual symptoms and adverse effects. Studies were pooled using random-effects models. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for premenstrual symptom scores, using separate analyses for different types of continuous data (that is end scores and change scores). Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Analyses were stratified by type of drug administration (luteal or continuous) and by drug dose (low, medium, or high). We calculated the number of women who would need to be taking a moderate dose of SSRI in order to cause one additional adverse event (number needed to harm: NNH). The overall quality of the evidence for the main findings was assessed using the GRADE working group methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-one RCTs were included in the review. They compared fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, escitalopram and citalopram versus placebo. SSRIs reduced overall self-rated symptoms significantly more effectively than placebo. The effect size was moderate when studies reporting end scores were pooled (for moderate dose SSRIs: SMD -0.65, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.84, nine studies, 1276 women; moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 58%), low quality evidence). The effect size was small when studies reporting change scores were pooled (for moderate dose SSRIs: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.51, four studies, 657 women; low heterogeneity (I(2)=29%), moderate quality evidence).SSRIs were effective for symptom relief whether taken only in the luteal phase or continuously, with no clear evidence of a difference in effectiveness between these modes of administration. However, few studies directly compared luteal and continuous regimens and more evidence is needed on this question.Withdrawals due to adverse effects were significantly more likely to occur in the SSRI group (moderate dose: OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.84 to 3.53, 15 studies, 2447 women; no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%), moderate quality evidence). The most common side effects associated with a moderate dose of SSRIs were nausea (NNH = 7), asthenia or decreased energy (NNH = 9), somnolence (NNH = 13), fatigue (NNH = 14), decreased libido (NNH = 14) and sweating (NNH = 14). In secondary analyses, SSRIs were effective for treating specific types of symptoms (that is psychological, physical and functional symptoms, and irritability). Adverse effects were dose-related.The overall quality of the evidence was low to moderate, the main weakness in the included studies being poor reporting of methods. Heterogeneity was low or absent for most outcomes, though (as noted above) there was moderate heterogeneity for one of the primary analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

SSRIs are effective in reducing the symptoms of PMS, whether taken in the luteal phase only or continuously. Adverse effects are relatively frequent, the most common being nausea and asthenia. Adverse effects are dose-dependent.

Hormone therapy in postmenopausal women and risk of endometrial hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

Reduced circulating estrogen levels around the time of the menopause can induce unacceptable symptoms that affect the health and well-being of women. Hormone therapy (both unopposed estrogen and estrogen/progestogen combinations) is an effective treatment for these symptoms, but is associated with risk of harms. Guidelines recommend that hormone therapy be given at the lowest effective dose and treatment should be reviewed regularly. The aim of this review is to identify the minimum dose(s) of progestogen required to be added to estrogen so that the rate of endometrial hyperplasia is not increased compared to placebo.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to assess which hormone therapy regimens provide effective protection against the development of endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (searched January 2012), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2012), EMBASE (1980 to January 2012), Current Contents (1993 to May 2008), Biological Abstracts (1969 to 2008), Social Sciences Index (1980 to May 2008), PsycINFO (1972 to January 2012) and CINAHL (1982 to May 2008). Attempts were made to identify trials from citation lists of reviews and studies retrieved, and drug companies were contacted for unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised comparisons of unopposed estrogen therapy, combined continuous estrogen-progestogen therapy, sequential estrogen-progestogen therapy with each other or placebo, administered over a minimum period of 12 months. Incidence of endometrial hyperplasia/carcinoma assessed by a biopsy at the end of treatment was a required outcome. Data on adherence to therapy, rates of additional interventions, and withdrawals owing to adverse events were also extracted.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In this update, 46 studies were included. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The small numbers of studies in each comparison and the clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis for many outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Unopposed estrogen is associated with increased risk of endometrial hyperplasia at all doses, and durations of therapy between one and three years. For women with a uterus the risk of endometrial hyperplasia with hormone therapy comprising low-dose estrogen continuously combined with a minimum of 1 mg norethisterone acetate (NETA) or 1.5 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) is not significantly different from placebo at two years (1 mg NETA: OR 0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0 to 2.8; 1.5 mg MPA: no hyperplasia events).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hormone therapy for postmenopausal women with an intact uterus should comprise both estrogen and progestogen to reduce the risk of endometrial hyperplasia.

Long term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Hormone therapy (HT) is widely used for controlling menopausal symptoms and has also 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 the effects of long term HT on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures, cognition and quality of life in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women, both during HT use and after cessation of HT use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to February 2012: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised double-blind studies of HT versus placebo, taken for at least one year by perimenopausal or postmenopausal women. HT included oestrogens, with or without progestogens, via oral, transdermal, subcutaneous or intranasal routes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRS) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where findings were statistically significant, we calculated the absolute risk (AR) in the intervention group (the overall risk of an event in women taking HT).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three studies involving 42,830 women were included. Seventy per cent of the data were derived from two studies (WHI 1998 and HERS 1998). Most participants were postmenopausal American women with at least some degree of co-morbidity, and the mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. None of the studies focused on perimenopausal women. In relatively healthy postmenopausal women (that is generally fit, without overt disease) combined continuous HT significantly increased the risk of a coronary event (after one year's use: AR 4 per 1000, 95% CI 3 to 7), venous thrombo-embolism (after one year's use: AR 7 per 1000, 95% CI 4 to 11), stroke (after three years' use: AR 18 per 1000, 95% CI 14 to 23), breast cancer (after 5.6 years' use: AR 23 per 1000, 95% CI 19 to 29), gallbladder disease (after 5.6 years' use: AR 27 per 1000, 95% CI 21 to 34) and death from lung cancer (after 5.6 years' use plus 2.4 years' additional follow-up: AR 9 per 1000, 95% CI 6 to 13). Oestrogen-only HT significantly increased the risk of venous thrombo-embolism (after one to two years' use: AR 5 per 1000, 95% CI 2 to 10; after 7 years' use: AR 21 per 1000, 95% CI 16 to 28), stroke (after 7 years' use: AR 32 per 1000, 95% CI 25 to 40) and gallbladder disease (after seven years' use: AR 45 per 1000, 95% CI 36 to 57) but did not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer. Among women aged over 65 years who were relatively healthy and taking continuous combined HT, there was a statistically significant increase in the incidence of dementia (after 4 years' use: AR 18 per 1000, 95% CI 11 to 30). Among women with cardiovascular disease, long term use of combined continuous HT significantly increased the risk of venous thrombo-embolism (at one year: AR 9 per 1000, 95% CI 3 to 29). Women taking HT had a significantly decreased incidence of fractures with long term use (after 5.6 years of combined HT: AR 86 per 1000, 95% CI 79 to 84; after 7.1 years' use of oestrogen-only HT: AR 102 per 1000, 95% CI 91 to 112). Risk of fracture was the only outcome for which there was strong evidence of clinical benefit from HT. There was no strong evidence that HT has a clinically meaningful impact on the incidence of colorectal cancer.One trial analysed subgroups of 2839 relatively healthy 50 to 59 year old women taking combined continuous HT and 1637 taking oestrogen-only HT versus similar-sized placebo groups. The only significantly increased risk reported was for venous thrombo-embolism 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 the menopause.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

HT is not indicated for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease or dementia, nor for preventing 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. There are insufficient data to assess the risk of long term HT use in perimenopausal women or postmenopausal women younger than 50 years of age.

Laparoscopic drilling by diathermy or laser for ovulation induction in anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Surgical ovarian wedge resection was the first established treatment for women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) but was largely abandoned both due to the risk of postsurgical adhesions and the introduction of medical ovulation induction. However, women with PCOS who are treated with medical ovulation induction, with drugs such as gonadotrophins, often have an over-production of follicles which may result in ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and multiple pregnancies. Moreover, gonadotrophins, though effective, are costly and time-consuming and their use requires intensive monitoring. Surgical therapy with laparoscopic ovarian 'drilling' (LOD) may avoid or reduce the need for medical ovulation induction, or may facilitate its usefulness. The procedure can be done on an outpatient basis with less trauma and fewer postoperative adhesions than with traditional surgical approaches. Many uncontrolled observational studies have claimed that ovarian drilling is followed, at least temporarily, by a high rate of spontaneous ovulation and conception, or that subsequent medical ovulation induction becomes easier.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic ovarian drilling compared with ovulation induction for subfertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the search strategy of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) to search the MDSG Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. The keywords included polycystic ovary syndrome, laparoscopic ovarian drilling, electrocautery and diathermy. Searches were conducted in September 2011, and a further search of the MDSG Trials Register was made on 14 May 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of subfertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS who undertook laparoscopic ovarian drilling in order to induce ovulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This is an update of a previously updated review. There were nine RCTs in the previous version; an additional 16 trials were added in the current (2012) update. All trials were assessed for quality. The primary outcomes were live birth and multiple pregnancy. The secondary outcomes were rate of miscarriage, ovulation and pregnancy rates, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), quality of life and cost.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials, including 1210 women, reported on the primary outcome of live birth rate per couple. Live births were reported in 34% of women in the LOD groups and 38% in other medical treatment groups. There were five different comparisons with LOD and there was no evidence of a difference in live births when compared with clomiphene citrate + tamoxifen (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.53; P = 0.51, 1 trial, n = 150), gonadotrophins (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.59; P = 0.89, I(2) = 0%, 2 trials, n = 318), aromatase inhibitors (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; P = 0.44, I(2) = 0%, 2 trials, n = 407) or clomiphene citrate (OR 1.21; 95%CI 0.64 to 2.32; 1 trial, n=176, P= 0.05). There was evidence of significantly fewer live births following LOD compared with clomiphene citrate + metformin (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.82; P = 0.01, I(2) = 78%, 2 trials, n = 159); the high heterogeneity in this subgroup could not be explained by population differences or differences in quality of the trials.Thirteen trials reported on multiple pregnancies (n= 1305 women). There were no cases of multiple pregnancies in either group for clomiphene citrate or aromatase inhibitors compared with LOD. The rate of multiple pregnancies was significantly lower in the LOD group compared with trials using gonadotrophins (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.52; P=0.004, I(2) = 0%, 5 trials, n = 166).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence of a significant difference in rates of clinical pregnancy, live birth or miscarriage in women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS undergoing LOD compared to other medical treatments. The reduction in multiple pregnancy rates in women undergoing LOD makes this option attractive. However, there are ongoing concerns about the long-term effects of LOD on ovarian function.

Chinese herbal medicine in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Traditionally Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been used widely in Chinese hospitals to treat ectopic pregnancy. Many studies have been published supporting its use but the evidence has not been systematically reviewed. This is and update of the review published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised databases (CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, Traditional Chinese Medicine Database System) were searched from their inception to November 2010 for relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) on the use of CHM for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Original authors of the identified studies were contacted to determine the trial design and identify authentic RCTs. Two review authors extracted and analysed the data.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 281 trials. Only two studies involving a total of 157 participants were confirmed to be authentic RCTs (Li 2004c; Zhao 2000). Both were of poor methodological quality with a high risk of conflicted interest and potential for bias in favour of the intervention. We could not reach a definitive conclusion from the results. The pooled result showed that adding a Western medicine to CHM resulted in a significantly higher treatment success rate than with CHM alone (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.63). When CHM plus Western medicine was compared to CHM alone for the time to disappearance of abdominal pain, again the results favoured the arm that included Western medicine (RR -2.09, 95% CI -4.14 to -0.04). Results were inconsistent for the time required for human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG) to return to normal. One study favoured CHM plus Western medicine over Western medicine (with or without placebo) (MD -6.68, 95% CI -11.49 to -1.87); when CHM plus Western medicine was compared to CHM alone the results favoured the arm that included Western medicine (MD -8.12, 95% CI -10.89 to -5.53).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found any well-designed trials investigating Chinese herbal medicines in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. We cannot support or refute any CHM preparation for clinical use on the basis of evidence from randomised controlled trials.

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 which act by blocking prostaglandin production.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review is to compare nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea versus placebo, versus paracetamol and versus each other, to evaluate their effectiveness and safety.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases to May 2009: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. The National Research Register and the Clinical Trials Register were also searched. Abstracts of major scientific meetings and the reference lists of relevant articles were checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled comparisons of NSAIDs versus placebo, other NSAIDs or paracetamol, when used to treat primary dysmenorrhoea.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trials for quality and extracted data, calculating odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Inverse variance methods were used to combine data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-three randomised controlled trials were included. Among women with primary dysmenorrhoea, NSAIDs were significantly more effective for pain relief than placebo (OR 4.50, 95% CI: 3.85, 5.27). There was substantial heterogeneity for this finding (I(2) statistic =53%): exclusion of two outlying studies with no or negligible placebo effect reduced heterogeneity, resulting in an odds ratio of 4.14 (95% CI: 3.52, 4.86, I(2)=40%). NSAIDs were also significantly more effective for pain relief than paracetamol (OR 1.90, 95% CI:1.05 to 3.44). However, NSAIDS were associated with significantly more overall adverse effects than placebo (OR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.66). When 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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs are an effective treatment for dysmenorrhoea, though women using them need to be aware of the significant 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.

Hormone therapy in postmenopausal women and risk of endometrial hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

Declining circulating estrogen levels around the time of the menopause can induce unacceptable symptoms that affect the health and well being of women. Hormone therapy (both unopposed estrogen and estrogen/progestogen combinations) is an effective treatment for these symptoms, but is associated with risk of harms. Guidelines recommend that hormone therapy be given at the lowest effective dose and treatment should be reviewed regularly. The aim of this review is to identify the minimum dose(s) of progestogen required to be added to estrogen so that the rate of endometrial hyperplasia is not increased compared to placebo.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to assess which hormone therapy regimens provide effective protection against the development of endometrial hyperplasia and/or carcinoma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (searched January 2008), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2008), EMBASE (1980 to May 2008), Current Contents (1993 to May 2008), Biological Abstracts (1969 to 2008), Social Sciences Index (1980 to May 2008), PsycINFO (1972 to May 2008) and CINAHL (1982 to May 2008). Attempts were made to identify trials from citation lists of reviews and studies retrieved, and drug companies were contacted for unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised comparisons of unopposed estrogen therapy, combined continuous estrogen-progestogen therapy and/or sequential estrogen-progestogen therapy with each other or placebo, administered over a minimum period of twelve months. Incidence of endometrial hyperplasia/carcinoma assessed by a biopsy at the end of treatment was a required outcome. Data on adherence to therapy, rates of additional interventions, and withdrawals due to adverse events were also extracted.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In this substantive update, forty five studies were included. Odds ratios were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The small numbers of studies in each comparison and the clinical heterogeneity precluded meta analysis for many outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Unopposed estrogen is associated with increased risk of endometrial hyperplasia at all doses, and durations of therapy between one and three years. For women with a uterus the risk of endometrial hyperplasia with hormone therapy comprising low dose estrogen continuously combined with a minimum of 1 mg norethisterone acetate or 1.5 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate is not significantly different from placebo (1mg NETA: OR=0.04 (0 to 2.8); 1.5mg MPA: no hyperplasia events).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hormone therapy for postmenopausal women with an intact uterus should comprise both estrogen and progestogen to reduce the risk of endometrial hyperplasia.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for premenstrual syndrome

BACKGROUND

This is a substantive update of a previous review. Severe premenstrual syndrome (PMS) affects between 3% to 5% of women of reproductive age. Severe PMS is classified under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are increasingly used as front-line therapy for PMS. A systematic review was undertaken on the efficacy of SSRIs in the management of severe PMS, or PMDD, to assess the evidence for this treatment option.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of SSRIs in reducing premenstrual syndrome symptoms in women diagnosed with severe premenstrual syndrome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials were undertaken in the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL (March 2008). Where insufficient data were presented in a report the original authors were contacted for further details.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All trials were considered in which women with a prospective diagnosis of PMS, PMDD or late luteal phase dysphoric disorder (LPDD) were randomised to receive SSRIs or placebo for the treatment of premenstrual syndrome in a blinded trial.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Forty randomised controlled trials were identified which reported the use of SSRIs in the management of PMS. Fifty-six trials were excluded. The review authors extracted the data independently and estimated standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Due to heterogeneity, analyses were subgrouped into change and absolute scores. The primary analysis of reduction in overall symptomatology included data on 2294 women with premenstrual syndrome. SSRIs were found to be highly effective in treating the premenstrual symptoms (SMD -0.53, 95% CI 0.68 to -0.39; P < 0.00001). Secondary analysis showed that they were effective in treating physical (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.22; P < 0.00001), functional (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.17; P < 0.00001), and behavioural symptoms (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.29; P < 0.00001). Luteal phase only and continuous administration were both effective and there was no influence of a placebo run-in period on reduction in symptoms. All SSRIs (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, fluvoxamine, citalopram, and clomipramine) were effective in reducing premenstrual symptoms. Withdrawals due to side effects were twice as likely to occur in the treatment group (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.92; P < 0.00001).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence supports the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the management of severe premenstrual syndrome.

Long term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Hormone therapy (HT) is widely used for controlling menopausal symptoms and has also been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review first published in 2005.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of long-term HT on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, cognition, fractures and quality of life.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases to November 2007: Trials Register of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts. Also relevant non-indexed journals and conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised double-blind trials of HT versus placebo, taken for at least one year by perimenopausal or postmenopausal women. HT included oestrogens, with or without progestogens, via oral, transdermal, subcutaneous or transnasal routes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials involving 41,904 women were included. In relatively healthy women, combined continuous HT significantly increased the risk of venous thrombo-embolism or coronary event (after one year's use), stroke (after three years), breast cancer and gallbladder disease. Long-term oestrogen-only HT significantly increased the risk of venous thrombo-embolism, stroke and gallbladder disease (after one to two years, three years and seven years' use respectively), but did not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer. The only statistically significant benefits of HT were a decreased incidence of fractures and (for combined HT) colon cancer, with long-term use. Among women aged over 65 who were relatively healthy (i.e. generally fit, without overt disease) and taking continuous combined HT, there was a statistically significant increase in the incidence of dementia. Among women with cardiovascular disease, long-term use of combined continuous HT significantly increased the risk of venous thrombo-embolism.One trial analysed subgroups of 2839 relatively healthy 50 to 59 year old women taking combined continuous HT and 1637 taking oestrogen-only HT, versus similar-sized placebo groups. The only significantly increased risk reported was for venous thrombo-embolism in women taking combined continuous HT: their absolute risk remained low, at less than 1/500. However, this study was not powered to detect differences between groups of younger women.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

HT is not indicated for the routine management of chronic disease. We need more evidence on the safety of HT for menopausal symptom control, though short-term use appears to be relatively safe for healthy younger women.

Cervical insemination versus intra-uterine insemination of donor sperm for subfertility

BACKGROUND

Insemination with donor sperm is an option for couples for whom in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has been unsuccessful, couples with azoospermia and for single women or same sex couples. Insemination of sperm can be done via cervical (CI) or intra-uterine (IUI) routes. IUI has been considered potentially more effective than CI as the sperm bypasses the cervical mucus and is deposited closer to the fallopian tubes. The cost and risks of IUI may be higher because of the need for sperm preparation and the introduction of foreign material into the uterus. Donor sperm used for artificial insemination is mainly cryopreserved, due to concerns about HIV transmission. However, cycle fecundity is higher for fresh sperm. Insemination is often combined with ovulatory stimulation, with either clomiphene or gonadotrophin. There may be risks associated with these therapies, such as higher multiple pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether pregnancy outcomes are improved using intra-uterine insemination in comparison to cervical insemination in women undergoing artificial insemination with donor sperm.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library) , MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the reference lists of articles retrieved.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing IUI with CI were included. Crossover studies were included if pre-crossover data was available.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study quality assessment and data extraction were carried out independently by two review authors (DB, JM). Authors of studies that potentially met the inclusion criteria were contacted, where possible if additional information was needed.

MAIN RESULTS

The search strategy found 232 articles. Fifteen studies potentially met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were included in this review. All the included studies used cryopreserved sperm in stimulated cycles. In two studies 134 women had gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles and in two studies 74 women had clomiphene-stimulated cycles. The evidence showed that IUI after 6 cycles significantly improved live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 3.86) and pregnancy rates (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.90 to 5.96) in comparison to cervical insemination. There was no statistically significant evidence of an effect on multiple pregnancies (OR 2.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 6.07) or miscarriages (relative risk (RR) 3.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 17.96).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this systematic review support the use of IUI rather than CI in stimulated cycles using cryopreserved sperm for donor insemination.

Phytoestrogens for vasomotor menopausal symptoms

BACKGROUND

Vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flushes and night sweats, are very common during the menopausal transition. Hormone replacement therapy has traditionally been used as a very effective treatment but concerns over increased risks of some chronic diseases have markedly increased the interest of women in alternatives. Some of the most popular of these are treatments based on foods or supplements enriched with phytoestrogens, plant-derived chemicals that have oestrogenic action.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, safety and acceptability of foods and supplements based on high levels of phytoestrogens for reducing hot flushes and night sweats in postmenopausal women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches were undertaken of the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of randomised trials, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (March 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2007), EMBASE (1980 to March 2007), AMED (1985 to March 2007), PsycINFO (1986 to March 2007) and CINAHL (1982 to March 2007). Attempts were made to access grey literature by letters to pharmaceutical companies and searches of ongoing trial registers. Reference lists of included trials were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomised, had peri- or postmenopausal participants with vasomotor symptoms, a duration of at least 12 weeks and where the intervention was a food or supplement with high levels of phytoestrogens (and not combined with other herbal treatments). Trials of women who had breast cancer or a history of breast cancer were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Selection of trials, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by at least two authors. Most of the trials were too dissimilar to combine in meta-analysis and their results are provided in table format. Studies were grouped into broad categories: dietary soy, soy extracts, red clover extracts and other types of phytoestrogen. Five trials used Promensil, a red clover extract; these trials were combined in a meta-analysis and summary effect measures were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty trials comparing phytoestrogens with control met the inclusion criteria. Very few trials had data suitable for combining in meta-analysis. Of the five trials with data suitable for pooling that assessed daily frequency of hot flushes, there was no significant difference overall in the frequency of hot flushes between Promensil (a red clover extract) and placebo (WMD=-0.6, 95% CI -1.8 to 0.6). There was no evidence of a difference in percentage reduction in hot flushes in two trials between Promensil and placebo (WMD=20.2, 95% CI -12.1 to 52.4). Individual results from the remaining trials were compared. Some of the trials found that phytoestrogen treatments alleviated the frequency and severity of hot flushes and night sweats when compared to placebo but many of the trials were of low quality and were underpowered. There was a strong placebo effect in most trials with a reduction in frequency ranging from 1% to 59% with placebo. There was no indication that the discrepant results were due to the amount of isoflavone in the active treatment arm, the severity of vasomotor symptoms or trial quality factors. There was also no evidence that the treatments caused oestrogenic stimulation of the endometrium (an adverse effect) when used for up to two years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of effectiveness in the alleviation of menopausal symptoms with the use of phytoestrogen treatments.

Chinese herbal medicines in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Traditional Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been used widely in Chinese hospitals to treat ectopic pregnancy. Many studies have been published supporting its use but the evidence has not been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised databases (CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, Traditional Chinese Medicine Database System) were searched from their inception to March 2006 for relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) on the use of CHM for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Original authors of the identified studies were contacted to determine the trial design and identify authentic RCTs. Two review authors extracted and analysed the data.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 166 trials. Only two studies involving a total of 157 participants were confirmed to be authentic RCTs ( Li 2004c; Zhao 2000). Both were of poor methodological quality with a high risk of conflicted interest and potential for bias in favour of the intervention. We could not reach a definitive conclusion from the results. The pooled result showed that adding a Western medicine to CHM resulted in a significantly higher treatment success rate than with CHM alone (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.63). When CHM plus Western medicine was compared to CHM alone for the time to disappearance of abdominal pain, again the results favoured the arm that included Western medicine (RR -2.09, 95% CI -4.14 to -0.04). Results were inconsistent for the time required for human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG) to return to normal. One study favoured CHM plus Western medicine over Western medicine (with or without placebo) (WMD -6.68, 95% CI -11.49 to -1.87); when CHM plus Western medicine was compared to CHM alone the results favoured the arm that included Western medicine (WMD -8.12, 95% CI -10.89 to -5.53).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found any well-designed trials investigating traditional Chinese herbal medicines in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. We cannot support or refute any CHM preparation for clinical use on the basis of evidence from randomised controlled trials.

Laparoscopic 'drilling' by diathermy or laser for ovulation induction in anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Surgical ovarian wedge resection was the first established treatment for women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) but was largely abandoned due to the risk of postsurgical adhesions and the introduction of medical ovulation induction with clomiphene and gonadotrophins. However, women with PCOS who are treated with gonadotrophins often have an over-production of follicles which may result in ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and multiple pregnancies. Moreover, gonadotrophins, though effective, are costly and time-consuming requiring intensive monitoring. Surgical therapy with laparoscopic ovarian 'drilling' (LOD) may avoid or reduce the need for gonadotrophins or may facilitate their usefulness. The procedure can be done on an outpatient basis with less trauma and fewer postoperative adhesions than with traditional surgical approaches. Many uncontrolled observational studies have claimed that ovarian drilling is followed, at least temporarily, by a high rate of spontaneous ovulation and conception or that subsequent medical ovulation induction becomes easier.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic ovarian drilling compared with ovulation induction for subfertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We used the search strategy of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of subfertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS who undertook laparoscopic ovarian drilling in order to induce ovulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Sixteen trials were identified and nine were included in the review. All trials were assessed for quality criteria. The primary outcomes were live birth, ovulation and pregnancy rates and the secondary outcomes were rates of miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and cost.

MAIN RESULTS

There was no evidence of a difference in live birth or clinical pregnancy rate between LOD and gonadotrophins and the pooled odds ratios (OR) (all studies) were 1.04 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.85) and 1.08 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.71) respectively. Multiple pregnancy rates were lower with ovarian drilling than with gonadotrophins (1% versus 16%; OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.52). There was no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates between the two groups (OR 0.81, 95% 0.36 to 1.86).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence of a difference in the live birth rate and miscarriage rate in women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS undergoing LOD compared to gonadotrophin treatment. The reduction in multiple pregnancy rates in women undergoing LOD makes this option attractive. However, there are ongoing concerns about long-term effects of LOD on ovarian function.

High dose chemotherapy for poor prognosis breast cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High dose chemotherapy with autologous transplantation of bone marrow or peripheral stem cells (autograft) has been considered promising for treating poor prognosis breast cancer. We reviewed the relevant evidence.

METHODS

We included randomised controlled trials comparing high dose chemotherapy and autograft with conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. We searched medical databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE), websites (co-operative cancer research groups, American Society of Clinical Oncologists) and citations of articles found, to September 2006. Where appropriate, data were pooled to obtain a relative risk, using a fixed effects model. Clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity were examined with sensitivity analyses.

FINDINGS

Thirteen trials with 5064 women were included. There was a significant benefit in event-free survival for the high dose group at three years (RR 1.19 (95% CI 1.06, 1.19)) and four years (RR 1.24 (95% CI 1.03, 1.50)) and at five years this benefit approached statistical significance (RR 1.06 (95% CI 1.00, 1.13)). Overall survival rates were not significantly different at any stage of follow up. There were significantly more treatment-related deaths on the high dose arm (RR 8.58 (95% CI 4.13, 17.80)). Morbidity was higher in the high dose group but there was no significant difference in the incidence of second cancers. The high dose group reported significantly worse quality of life immediately after treatment, but there were few differences by one year.

INTERPRETATION

There is insufficient evidence supporting routine use of high dose chemotherapy with autograft for treating early poor prognosis breast cancer.

Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) significantly impairs the quality of life of many otherwise healthy women. Perception of HMB is subjective and management usually depends upon what symptoms are acceptable to the individual. Medical treatment options include oral medication and a hormone-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). Surgical options include conservative surgery (uterine resection or ablation) and hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of surgery versus medical therapy for HMB.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In September 2005 we searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE EMBASE, Current Contents, Biological Abstracts, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched reference lists of articles retrieved and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled randomised trials comparing conservative surgery or hysterectomy versus medical therapy (oral or intrauterine) for HMB DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trials for quality and extracted data .

MAIN RESULTS

The eight included trials randomised 821 women. In comparisons of oral medication versus surgery, 58% of women randomised to medical treatment had received surgery by two years. Compared to oral medication, endometrial resection was significantly more effective in controlling bleeding (at four months: OR 10.62, 95% CI 5.30 to 21.27) and significantly less likely to cause side effects (at four months: OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.31) and hysterectomy resulted in significantly greater improvements in mental health (at six months p = 0.04). In comparisons of LNG-IUS versus conservative surgery or hysterectomy, at one year there was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction rates or quality of life, though adverse effects were significantly less likely with conservative surgery (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.49). Two trials found conservative surgery significantly more effective than LNG-IUS in controlling bleeding at one year (OR 3.99, 95% CI 1.53 to 10.38). Two other small trials with longer follow-up found no difference or favoured LNG-IUS - however in both these studies the data were skewed and fewer than two thirds of participants were analysed. Hysterectomy stopped all bleeding but caused serious complications for some women.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Surgery, especially hysterectomy, reduces menstrual bleeding at one year more than medical treatments but LNG-IUS appears equally effective in improving quality of life. The evidence for longer term comparisons is weak and inconsistent. Oral medication suits a minority of women long term.

High dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

There is a hypothesis that high dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow or peripheral stem cell transplantation (autograft) may improve survival for women with metastatic breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of high dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation with conventional chemotherapy for women with metastatic breast cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We used the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group search strategy, adding these terms: bone marrow transplantation, stem cell transplantation, autologous stem cell support. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (until November 2004), EMBASE (until November 2004), ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) (1995-2004) and the COCHRANE LIBRARY (Issue 4 2004). We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group database and cooperative research groups' websites for unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of high dose chemotherapy and autograft with conventional chemotherapy for women with metastatic breast cancer. Studies included one or more of the following outcomes: treatment related mortality, overall or progression-free survival at 1, 2, 3, 5 or 7 years, morbidity, quality of life measures, time to tumour progression, overall survival time.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

In total 438 eligible women were randomised to receive high dose chemotherapy with autograft and 412 were randomised to receive conventional treatment. There were fifteen treatment-related deaths among the high dose group and two in the control (conventional dose) group (RR 4.07 (95% CI 1.39, 11.88)). There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the high dose and control groups at one year, three years or five years. At one and five years of follow up, there was a statistically significant difference in event-free survival, favouring the high dose group (one year: RR 1.76 (95% CI 1.40, 2.21); five years: RR 2.84 (95% CI 1.07, 7.50). Toxicity was more severe in the high dose group. Only one of the trials has followed up all women for five years and further data are awaited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although there is statistically significant evidence that high dose chemotherapy and autograft improves event free survival compared to conventional chemotherapy, there is no statistically significant evidence of benefit in overall survival for women with metastatic breast cancer. High dose chemotherapy with bone marrow or stem cell transplantation should not be given to women with metastatic breast cancer outside of clinical trials.