A systematic review of outcome reporting and outcome measures in studies investigating uterine-sparing treatment for adenomyosis

Outcome Reporting in Studies Investigating Treatment for Caesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSEP) is associated with significant maternal and foetal morbidity. However, the optimal treatment remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to review outcomes reported in studies on CSEP treatment and outcome reporting quality.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We reviewed 1270 articles identified through searching PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar from 2014 to 2024 using the search terms 'caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy and caesarean scar pregnancy'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all study types evaluating any form of CSEP treatment, with a sample size of ≥ 50, where diagnosis was described, and the article was in English.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed studies and assessed outcome reporting and methodological quality. The relationship between outcome reporting quality and publication year and journal type was assessed with univariate and bivariate models.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 108 studies, including 17 941 women, were included. 83% of all studies originated from China. Studies reported on 326 outcomes; blood loss (86%), need for additional intervention (77%) and time for serum hCG to normalise post treatment (69%) were the most common outcomes. A primary outcome was clearly defined in 11 (10%) studies. The median quality of outcome reporting was 3 (IQR 3-4). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality and publication year (p = 0.116) or journal type (p = 0.503).

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that there is a wide variation in outcomes reported in studies on CSEP treatment. Development and implementation of a core outcome set by international stakeholders which includes patients is urgently needed to enable high-quality research that is both useful and relevant to patients.

Adenomyosis and fertility-sparing surgery: A literature appraisal

Adenomyosis is an intricate pathological condition that negatively impacts the uterus. It is closely related to the more well-known endometriosis, with which it shares parallels in terms of diagnosis, therapy, and both microscopic and macroscopic features. The purpose of this narrative review is to give a clear univocal definition and outlook on the different, patient-adapted, surgical treatments. MEDLINE and PubMed searches on these topics were conducted from 1990 to 2022 using a mix of selected keywords. Papers and articles were identified and included in this narrative review after authors' revision and evaluation. From the literature analysis, authors reported the following surgical techniques: laparoscopic double/triple-flap method, laparotomic wedge resection of the uterine wall, laparotomic transverse H-incision of the uterine wall, laparotomic wedge-shaped excision, and laparotomic complete debulking excision by asymmetric dissection technique. Each of these techniques has strengths and weaknesses, but the literature data on the pregnancy rate are somewhat limited. The only certain information is the risk of uterine rupture up to 6.0% after surgical treatment for uterine adenomyosis. Over the years, the surgical approach continued to reach a positive result by minimally invasive treatment, with less hospitalization, less postoperative pain, and less blood loss. Over the years, the gynecological surgeon has gained the skills, training and increasingly sophisticated surgical techniques to target effective therapy. That's why a hysterectomy is no longer the only surgical resource to treat adenomyosis, but in patients who wish to preserve the fertility, there is a wide variety of surgical alternatives.

Long-term efficacy and safety of levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system in the treatment of adenomyosis: evidence mapping

PURPOSE

To summarize evidence on levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in the treatment of adenomyosis (AM) and to identify potential research gaps.

METHODS

Search was conducted in MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang. We included studies investigating patients with AM treated with LNG-IUS combined with conservative therapy.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies compared LNG-IUS with other conservative therapeutic drugs. The most common comparison was GnRH-a + LNG-IUS vs. LNG-IUS alone, followed by LNG-IUS vs. mifepristone, expected treatment, and GnRH-a. GnRH-a + LNG-IUS was more beneficial in reducing the intensity of dysmenorrhea than LNG-IUS alone at the 6-month follow-up in patients with an enlarged uterus and moderate to severe dysmenorrhea. Large and well-designed studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of LNG-IUS and GnRH-a on reducing uterine volume at 6-month follow-up. Thirty-two studies investigated LNG-IUS as the postoperative management. The most common comparison was surgical excision + LNG-IUS vs. surgical excision. Results showed VAS scores were lower in the surgical excision + LNG-IUS group than in the surgical excision group at the 1-year follow-up. Evidence on endometrial thickness, quality of life, adverse events and beneficial effect at 3 and 5 years are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined GnRH-a and LNG-IUS treatment was more efficacious than LNG-IUS alone for patients with an enlarged uterus and moderate to severe dysmenorrhea. Moreover, LNG-IUS seemed to show potential long-term benefits in postoperative therapy, warranting further meta-analysis for confirmation.

Laparoscopic adenomyomectomy combined with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system is effective for long-term management of adenomyosis

BACKGROUD

Laparoscopic adenomyomectomy combined with intraoperative placement of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS) is a novel conservative surgical procedure for adenomyosis. Our study aimed to compare the efficacy of surgery with or without intraoperative placement of LNG-IUS treatment in adenomyosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of adenomyosis patients who received laparoscopic adenomyomectomy from January 2014 to April 2020, finally including 70 patients undergoing surgery-LNG-IUS as group A and 69 patients undegoing surgery only as group B. Risk factors for three-year relapse were analyzed using Cox's multivariate proportional hazard analysis.

RESULTS

Visual analog scale and Mansfield-Voda-Jorgensen Menstrual Bleeding Scale scores of group A at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months were significantly lower than those of group B at the corresponding points (P < .001 for both scales). Individuals in both groups showed statistically significant symptom relief. The recurrence rate in group A was significantly lower than that in group B at 36 months after the surgery (2.94% vs. 32.84%, P < .001). A cox proportional hazard model showed that relapse was significantly associated with coexisting ovarian endometriosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-7.02, P = .015). Patients who received surgery-LNG-IUS had a lower risk of recurrence than those with surgery-alone (aHR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.016-0.31, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Conservative surgery with intraoperative placement of LNG-IUS is effective and well-accepted for long-term therapy with a lower recurrence rate for adenomyosis. Coexistent ovarian endometriosis is a major factor for adenomyosis relapse.

Reported outcomes in patients with iron deficiency or iron deficiency anemia undergoing major surgery: a systematic review of outcomes

BACKGROUND

Iron deficiency (ID) is the leading cause of anemia worldwide. The prevalence of preoperative ID ranges from 23 to 33%. Preoperative anemia is associated with worse outcomes, making it important to diagnose and treat ID before elective surgery. Several studies indicated the effectiveness of intravenous iron supplementation in iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)). However, it remains challenging to establish reliable evidence due to heterogeneity in utilized study outcomes. The development of a core outcome set (COS) can help to reduce this heterogeneity by proposing a minimal set of meaningful and standardized outcomes. The aim of our systematic review was to identify and assess outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in iron-deficient patients with or without anemia.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov systematically from 2000 to April 1, 2022. RCTs and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of ID(A), were included. Study characteristics and reported outcomes were extracted. Outcomes were categorized according to an established outcome taxonomy. Quality of outcome reporting was assessed with a pre-specified tool. Reported clinically relevant differences for sample size calculation were extracted.

RESULTS

Out of 2898 records, 346 underwent full-text screening and 13 studies (five RCTs, eight observational studies) with sufficient diagnostic inclusion criteria for iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)) were eligible. It is noteworthy to mention that 49 studies were excluded due to no confirmed diagnosis of ID(A). Overall, 111 outcomes were structured into five core areas including nine domains. Most studies (92%) reported outcomes within the 'blood and lymphatic system' domain, followed by "adverse event" (77%) and "need for further resources" (77%). All of the latter reported on the need for blood transfusion. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous in measures and timing. Merely, two (33%) of six prospective studies were registered prospectively of which one (17%) showed no signs of selective outcome reporting.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review comprehensively depicts the heterogeneity of reported outcomes in studies investigating iron supplementation in ID(A) patients regarding exact definitions and timing. Our analysis provides a systematic base for consenting to a minimal COS.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020214247.

Risk of Recurrence and Reintervention After Uterine-Sparing Interventions for Symptomatic Adenomyosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of recurrence and reintervention after uterine-sparing treatment options for symptomatic adenomyosis, including adenomyomectomy, uterine artery embolization (UAE), and image-guided thermal ablation.

DATA SOURCES

We searched electronic databases such as Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar from January 2000 to January 2022. The search was conducted using the following search terms: "adenomyosis," "recurrence," "reintervention," "relapse," and "recur."

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

All studies that described the risk of recurrence or reintervention after uterine-sparing interventions for symptomatic adenomyosis were reviewed and screened according to the eligibility criteria. Recurrence was defined as the reappearance of symptoms (painful menses or heavy menstrual bleeding) after significant or complete remission, or the reappearance of adenomyotic lesions confirmed by ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

The outcome measures were presented as the frequency with percentage and pooled with 95% CI. A total of 42 studies (single-arm retrospective and prospective studies) that represented 5,877 patients were included. The recurrence rates after adenomyomectomy, UAE, and image-guided thermal ablation were 12.6% (95% CI 8.9-16.4%), 29.5% (95% CI 17.4-41.5%), and 10.0% (95% CI 5.6-14.4%), respectively. The reintervention rates were 2.6% (95% CI 0.9-4.3%), 12.8% (95% CI 7.2-18.4%), and 8.2% (95% CI 4.6-11.9%) after adenomyomectomy, UAE, and image-guided thermal ablation, respectively. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed, and the heterogeneity was reduced in several analyses.

CONCLUSION

Uterine-sparing techniques were successful in treating adenomyosis with low reintervention rates. Uterine artery embolization had higher recurrence and reintervention rates than other techniques; however, patients treated with UAE had larger uteri and larger adenomyosis, indicating that selection bias may influence these results. More randomized controlled trials with a larger population are needed in the future.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021261289.

Nonsurgical management of adenomyosis: an overview of current evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Adenomyosis is a condition where endometrium-like tissue spreads within the myometrium. Although its prevalence in the general population is not exactly known, its clinical manifestations are well established and include pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea (painful periods), heavy menstrual bleeding and subfertility [1] . Adenomyosis often coexists with other gynaecological conditions, such as endometriosis or fibroids, and may cloud the clinical presentation [2] . The aim of this article is to review current noninterventional, nonsurgical management modalities and wherever possible offer information that allows women to make safe and informed choices regarding their treatment options.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies support that medical strategies, including the Mirena coil, Dienogest and GnRH antagonists, are efficient in improving adenomyosis-associated symptoms. High-quality evidence is scarce and is needed to properly counsel women with this condition. Future research should prioritize overall pain, menstrual bleeding, quality of life and live birth as primary outcomes and assess women with different grades of adenomyosis.

SUMMARY

This review provides the most current evidence with regards to the nonsurgical management of adenomyosis. In light of the paucity and low quality of existing data, high-quality trials are needed to definitely determine the impact of conservative and medical treatment on the clinical management of adenomyosis.

Variation of outcome reporting in studies of interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) detrimentally effects women. It is important to be able to compare treatments and synthesise data to understand which interventions are most beneficial, however, when there is variation in outcome reporting, this is difficult. Objectives: To identify variation in reported outcomes in clinical studies of interventions for HMB. Materials and methods: Searches were performed in medical databases and trial registries, using the terms ‘heavy menstrual bleeding’, menorrhagia*, hypermenorrhoea*, HMB, “heavy period „period“, effective*, therapy*, treatment, intervention, manage* and associated MeSH terms. Two authors independently reviewed and selected citations according to pre-defined selection criteria, including both randomised and observational studies. The following data were extracted- study characteristics, methodology and quality, and all reported outcomes. Analysis considered the frequency of reporting. Results: There were 14 individual primary outcomes, however reporting was varied, resulting in 45 specific primary outcomes. There were 165 specific secondary outcomes. The most reported outcomes were menstrual blood loss and adverse events. Conclusions: A core outcome set (COS) would reduce the evident variation in reporting of outcomes in studies of HMB, allowing more complete combination and comparison of study results and preventing reporting bias. What is new? This in-depth review of past research into heavy menstrual bleeding shows that there is the need for a core outcome set for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Development of a core outcome set and outcome definitions for studies on uterus-sparing treatments of adenomyosis (COSAR): an international multistakeholder-modified Delphi consensus study

STUDY QUESTION

What outcomes should be reported in all studies investigating uterus-sparing interventions for treating uterine adenomyosis?

SUMMARY ANSWER

We identified 24 specific and 26 generic core outcomes in nine domains.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Research reporting adenomyosis treatment is not patient-centred and shows wide variation in outcome selection, definition, reporting and measurement of quality.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

An international consensus development process was performed between March and December 2021. Participants in round one were 150 healthcare professionals, 17 researchers and 334 individuals or partners with lived experience of adenomyosis from 48 high-, middle- and low-income countries. There were 291 participants in the second round.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Stakeholders included active researchers in the field, healthcare professionals involved in diagnosis and treatment, and people and their partners with lived experience of adenomyosis. The core component of the process was a 2-step modified Delphi electronic survey. The Steering Committee analysed the results and created the final core outcome set (COS) in a semi-structured meeting.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 241 outcomes was identified and distilled into a 'long list' of 71 potential outcomes. The final COS comprises 24 specific and 26 generic core outcomes across nine domains, including pain, uterine bleeding, reproductive outcomes, haematology, urinary system, life impact, delivery of care, adverse events and reporting items, all with definitions provided by the Steering Committee. Nineteen of these outcomes will apply only to certain study types. Although not included in the COS, the Steering Committee recommended that three health economic outcomes should be recorded.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Patients from continents other than Europe were under-represented in this survey. A lack of translation of the survey might have limited the active participation of people in non-English speaking countries. Only 58% of participants returned to round two, but analysis did not indicate attrition bias. There is a significant lack of scientific evidence regarding which symptoms are caused by adenomyosis and when they are related to other co-existent disorders such as endometriosis. As future research provides more clarity, the appropriate review and revision of the COS will be necessary.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Implementing this COS in future studies on the treatment of adenomyosis will improve the quality of reporting and aid evidence synthesis.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No specific funding was received for this work. T.T. received a grant (grant number 2020083) from the South Eastern Norwegian Health Authority during the course of this work. T.T. receives personal fees from General Electrics and Medtronic for lectures on ultrasound. E.R.L. is the chairman of the Norwegian Endometriosis Association. M.G.M. is a consultant for Abbvie Inc and Myovant, receives research funding from AbbVie and is Chair of the Women's Health Research Collaborative. S.-W.G. is a board member of the Asian Society of Endometriosis and Adenomyosis, on the scientific advisory board of the endometriosis foundation of America, previous congress chair for the World Endometriosis Society, for none of which he received personal fees. E.S. received outside of this work grants for two multicentre trials on endometriosis from the National Institute for Health Research UK, the Rosetrees Trust, and the Barts and the London Charity, he is a member of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Medicines for Women's Health Expert Advisory Group, he is an ambassador for the World Endometriosis Society, and he received personal fees for lectures from Hologic, Olympus, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Intuitive and Karl Storz. M.H. is member of the British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy subcommittee. No other conflict of interest was declared.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Conservative surgical and drug therapies for adenomyosis Medicine

Adenomyosis is a benign invasion/infiltration of endometrial glands and stroma in the uterine myometrium. The optimal choice of adenomyosis treatment remains a subject of discussion. For patients with adenomyosis without fertility requirements, hysterectomy can be performed by laparotomy or laparoscopic surgery to eliminate symptoms. However, this is an inadequate option for women who want to preserve fertility or avoid more extensive surgery. To summarize the medicine and conservative surgery treatment for adenomyosis. An extensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) without language restriction. The search terms were as follows: adenomyomas, adenomyosis, conservative therapy; combined therapy; medicine; surgery. The search included all titles and abstracts assessing conservative treatment for adenomyosis including medical and surgical therapy. All published papers were analyzed if considered relevant. Increasing current conservative treatments will not only improve the quality of life of the patients but also preserve fertility. Therefore, conservative treatment is extremely important for patients with fertility requirements or a strong desire to retain the uterus. Conservative treatment for adenomyosis may become a future trend in the field of gynecology.

A protocol for developing, disseminating, and implementing a core outcome set for adenomyosis research

Background

Adenomyosis is a common benign gynaecological condition that has been associated with heavy and/or painful periods, subfertility and poor obstetric outcomes including miscarriage and preterm delivery. Studies evaluating treatments for adenomyosis have reported a wide range of outcomes and outcome measures. This variation in outcomes and outcome measures prevents effective data synthesis, thereby hampering the ability of meta-analyses to draw useful conclusions and inform clinical practice.

Objectives

Our aim is to develop a minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all future studies that investigate any uterus-sparing intervention for treating uterine adenomyosis. Wide adoption of 'core outcomes' into research on adenomyosis would reduce the heterogeneity of studies and make data synthesis easier. This will ultimately lead to comparable, prioritised, and patient-centred conclusions from meta-analyses and guidelines.

Materials and Methods

Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature will form a long list, agreed by an international steering group representing key stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, researchers, and public research partners. Through a modified Delphi process, key stakeholders will score outcomes from the agreed long list on a nine-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (not important) to 9 (critical). Following the Delphi process, the refined outcome set will be finalised by the steering group. Finally, the steering group will develop recommendations for high-quality measures for each outcome. The study was prospectively registered with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative; number 1649.

Conclusion

The implementation of the core outcome set for adenomyosis in future trials will enhance the availability of comparable data to facilitate more patient-centred evidence-based care.

What is new?

The core outcome set will facilitate the generation of clinically important and patient centred outcomes for studies evaluating treatments for adenomyosis.