Search

BACKGROUND: Preterm infants require high protein intake to achieve adequate growth and development. Although breast milk feeding has many benefits for this population, the protein content is highly variable, and inadequate to support rapid infant growth. This is a 2018 update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether protein‐supplemented human milk compared with unsupplemented human milk, fed to preterm infants, improves growth, body composition, cardio‐metabolic, and neurodevelopmental outcomes, without significant adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL (February 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi‐randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished RCTs were eligible if they used random or quasi‐random methods to allocate hospitalised preterm infants who were being fed human milk, to additional protein supplementation or no supplementation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and the quality of evidence at the outcome level, using GRADE methodology. We performed meta‐analyses, using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed‐effect model and had planned to explore potential causes of heterogeneity via subgroup or sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs, involving 204 preterm infants. Low‐quality evidence showed that protein supplementation of human milk increased in‐hospital rates of growth in weight (MD 3.82 g/kg/day, 95% CI 2.94 to 4.7; five RCTs, 101 infants; I² = 73%), length (MD 0.12 cm/wk, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17; four RCTs, 68 infants; I² = 89%), and head circumference (MD 0.06 cm/wk, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12; four RCTs, 68 infants; I² = 84%). There was no evidence of a clear difference in rate of growth of skin fold thickness between the supplemented and unsupplemented groups (triceps MD 0.06 mm/wk, 95% CI –0.09 to 0.21; one RCT, 20 infants; or subscapular MD 0.00 mm/wk, 95% CI –0.17 to 0.17; one RCT, 20 infants). Protein supplementation led to longer hospital stays (MD 18.5 days, 95% CI 4.39 to 32.61; one RCT, 20 infants; very low‐quality evidence), and higher blood urea nitrogen concentrations compared to the unsupplemented group (MD 0.95 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; four RCTs, 81 infants; I² = 56%). Very low‐quality evidence did not show that protein supplementation clearly increased the risk of feeding intolerance (RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.13 to 58.24; one RCT, 17 infants), or necrotizing enterocolitis (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.12; one RCT, 76 infants), or clearly altered serum albumin concentrations (MD 2.5 g/L, 95% CI –5.66 to 10.66; one RCT, 11 infants), compared with the unsupplemented groups. No data were available about the effects of protein supplementation on long‐term growth, body mass index, body composition, neurodevelopmental, or cardio‐metabolic outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low‐quality evidence showed that protein supplementation of human milk, fed to preterm infants, increased short‐term growth. However, the small sample sizes, low precision, and very low‐quality evidence regarding duration of hospital stay, feeding intolerance, and necrotising enterocolitis precluded any conclusions about these outcomes. There were no data on outcomes after hospital discharge. Our findings may not be generalisable to low‐resource settings, as none of the included studies were conducted in these settings. Since protein supplementation of human milk is now usually done as a component of multi‐nutrient fortifiers, future studies should compare different amounts of protein in multi‐component fortifiers, and be designed to determine the effects on duration of hospital stay and safety, as well as on long‐term growth, body composition, cardio‐metabolic, and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Background Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition which affects many women of reproductive age worldwide and is a major cause of pain and infertility. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is widely used to treat pain occurring as a result of endometriosis, although the evidence for its efficacy is limited. Objectives To determine the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral contraceptive preparations in the treatment of painful symptoms ascribed to the diagnosis of laparoscopically proven endometriosis. Search methods We searched the following from inception to 19 October 2017: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We also handsearched reference lists of relevant trials and systematic reviews retrieved by the search. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) of the use of COCPs in the treatment of women of reproductive age with symptoms ascribed to the diagnosis of endometriosis that had been made visually at a surgical procedure. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. One review author was an expert in the content matter. We contacted study authors for additional information. The primary outcome was self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment. Main results Five trials (612 women) met the inclusion criteria. Only three trials (404 women) provided data that were suitable for analysis. Combined oral contraceptive pill versus placebo Two trials compared COCP with a placebo. These studies were at high risk of bias. For GRADE outcomes (self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment), the quality of the evidence very low. Evidence was downgraded for imprecision as it was based on a single, small trial and for the visual analogue scale data there were wide confidence intervals (CIs). There appeared to have been substantial involvement of the pharmaceutical company funding the trials. Treatment with the COCP was associated with an improvement in self-reported pain at the end of treatment as evidenced by a lower score on the Dysmenorrhoea verbal rating scale (scale 0 to 3) compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -1.30 points, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.76; 1 RCT, 96 women; very low quality evidence), a lower score on the Dysmenorrhoea visual analogue scale (no details of scale) compared with placebo (MD -23.68 points, 95% CI -28.75 to -18.62, 2 RCTs, 327 women; very low quality evidence) and a reduction in menstrual pain from baseline to the end of treatment (MD 2.10 points, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.82; 1 RCT, 169 women; very low quality evidence). Combined oral contraceptive pill versus medical therapies One underpowered trial compared the COCP with another medical treatment (goserelin). The study was at high risk of bias; the trial was unblinded and there was insufficient detail to judge allocation concealment and randomisation. For GRADE outcomes (self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment), the quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low. At the end of treatment, the women in the goserelin group were amenorrhoeic and therefore no comparisons could be made between the groups for the primary outcome. At six months' follow-up, there was no clear evidence of a difference between women treated with the COCP and women treated with goserelin for measures of dysmenorrhoea on a visual analogue scale (scale 1 to 10) (MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.08; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence) or a verbal rating scale (scale 0 to 3) (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.79; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence). At six months' follow-up, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the COCP and goserelin groups for reporting complete absence of pain as measured by the visual analogue scale (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.43; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence) or the verbal rating scale (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 1 RCT, 49 women; low quality evidence). Authors' conclusions Based on the limited evidence from two trials at high risk of bias and limited data for the prespecified outcomes for this review, there is insufficient evidence to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the COCP compared with placebo and the findings cannot be generalised. Based on the limited evidence from one small trial that was at high risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the COCP compared with other medical treatments. Only one comparison was possible, with the medical intervention being goserelin, and the findings cannot be generalised. Further research is needed to fully evaluate the role of COCPs in managing pain-related symptoms associated with endometriosis. There are other formulations of the combined hormonal contraception such as the transdermal patch, vaginal ring or combined injectable contraceptives which this review did not cover but should be considered in future updates.

Pelvic organ prolapse may occur in up to 50% of parous women. A variety of urinary, bowel and sexual symptoms may be associated with the prolapse.To determine the effects of the many different surgeries used in the management of pelvic organ prolapse.We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings, healthcare-related bibliographic databases, handsearched conference proceedings (searched 20 August 2012), and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that included surgical operations for pelvic organ prolapse.Trials were assessed and data extracted independently by two review authors. Six investigators were contacted for additional information with five responding.Fifty-six randomised controlled trials were identified evaluating 5954 women. For upper vaginal prolapse (uterine or vault) abdominal sacral colpopexy was associated with a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse on examination and painful intercourse than with vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities of daily living and increased cost of the abdominal approach. In single studies the sacral colpopexy had a higher success rate on examination and lower reoperation rate than high vaginal uterosacral suspension and transvaginal polypropylene mesh.Twenty-one trials compared a variety of surgical procedures for anterior compartment prolapse (cystocele). Ten compared native tissue repair with graft (absorbable and permanent mesh, biological grafts) repair for anterior compartment prolapse. Native tissue anterior repair was associated with more recurrent anterior compartment prolapse than when supplemented with a polyglactin (absorbable) mesh inlay (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.90) or porcine dermis mesh inlay (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.01), however there was no difference in post-operative awareness of prolapse after absorbable mesh (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.81) or a biological graft (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.30). Data on morbidity and other clinical outcomes were lacking. Standard anterior repair was associated with more anterior compartment prolapse on examination than for any polypropylene (permanent) mesh repair (RR 3.15, 95% CI 2.50 to 3.96). Awareness of prolapse was also higher after the anterior repair as compared to polypropylene mesh repair (28% versus 18%, RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.07). However, the reoperation rate for prolapse was similar at 14/459 (3%) after the native tissue repair compared to 6/470 (1.3%) (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.93 to 5.10) after the anterior polypropylene mesh repair and no differences in quality of life data or de novo dyspareunia were identified. Blood loss (MD 64 ml, 95% CI 48 to 81), operating time (MD 19 min, 95% CI 16 to 21), recurrences in apical or posterior compartment (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.4) and de novo stress urinary incontinence (RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.1) were significantly higher with transobturator meshes than for native tissue anterior repair. Mesh erosions were reported in 11.4% (64/563), with surgical interventions being performed in 6.8% (32/470).Data from three trials compared native tissue repairs with a variety of total, anterior, or posterior polypropylene kit meshes for vaginal prolapse in multiple compartments. While no difference in awareness of prolapse was able to be identified between the groups (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.7) the recurrence rate on examination was higher in the native tissue repair group compared to the transvaginal polypropylene mesh group (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.1). The mesh erosion rate was 35/194 (18%), and 18/194 (9%) underwent surgical correction for mesh erosion. The reoperation rate after transvaginal polypropylene mesh repair of 22/194 (11%) was higher than after the native tissue repair (7/189, 3.7%) (RR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3 to 7.3).Data from three trials compared posterior vaginal repair and transanal repair for the treatment of posterior compartment prolapse (rectocele). The posterior vaginal repair had fewer recurrent prolapse symptoms (RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.0) and lower recurrence on examination (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6) and on defecography (MD -1.2 cm, 95% CI -2.0 to -0.3).Sixteen trials included significant data on bladder outcomes following a variety of prolapse surgeries. Women undergoing prolapse surgery may have benefited from having continence surgery performed concomitantly, especially if they had stress urinary incontinence (RR 7.4, 95% CI 4.0 to 14) or if they were continent and had occult stress urinary incontinence demonstrated pre-operatively (RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 6.6). Following prolapse surgery, 12% of women developed de novo symptoms of bladder overactivity and 9% de novo voiding dysfunction.Sacral colpopexy has superior outcomes to a variety of vaginal procedures including sacrospinous colpopexy, uterosacral colpopexy and transvaginal mesh. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities of daily living, and increased cost of the abdominal approach.The use of mesh or graft inlays at the time of anterior vaginal wall repair reduces the risk of recurrent anterior wall prolapse on examination. Anterior vaginal polypropylene mesh also reduces awareness of prolapse, however these benefits must be weighted against increased operating time, blood loss, rate of apical or posterior compartment prolapse, de novo stress urinary incontinence, and reoperation rate for mesh exposures associated with the use of polypropylene mesh.Posterior vaginal wall repair may be better than transanal repair in the management of rectocele in terms of recurrence of prolapse. The evidence is not supportive of any grafts at the time of posterior vaginal repair. Adequately powered randomised, controlled clinical trials with blinding of assessors are urgently needed on a wide variety of issues, and they particularly need to include women's perceptions of prolapse symptoms. Following the withdrawal of some commercial transvaginal mesh kits from the market, the generalisability of the findings, especially relating to anterior compartment transvaginal mesh, should be interpreted with caution.

Background Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is any degree of glucose intolerance that first presents and is recognised during pregnancy and usually resolves after the birth of the baby. GDM is associated with increased short- and long-term morbidity for the mother and her baby. Treatment usually includes lifestyle modification and/or pharmacological therapy (oral antidiabetic agents or insulin) with the aim to maintain treatment targets for blood glucose concentrations. Finding novel treatment agents which are effective, acceptable and safe for the mother and her baby are important. One such emerging potential intervention is myo-inositol which is an isomer of inositol and occurs endogenously and is found in natural dietary sources such as fruits, vegetables, nuts and cereals. Objectives To assess if dietary supplementation with myo-inositol during pregnancy is safe and effective, for the mother and fetus, in treating gestational diabetes. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (30 April 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 April 2016), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials reporting on the use of myo-inositol compared with placebo, no treatment or another intervention for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes. Quasi-randomised and cross-over studies are not eligible for inclusion. Women with pre-existing diabetes were excluded. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. For key outcomes (where data were available), we assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results We included two studies (142 women and infants), both were conducted in women in Italy and compared myo-inositol with a placebo control. None of the maternal primary outcomes pre-specified for this review were reported in the included studies: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; caesarean section; development of subsequent type 2 diabetes mellitus. No data were reported for the majority of this review's maternal secondary outcomes. We could only perform meta-analysis for two secondary outcomes: fasting oral glucose tolerance test and additional pharmacological treatment. All other results are based on data from single studies. Overall, the risk of bias of the included studies was judged to be unclear due to lack of key methodological information. There was no evidence of a difference between treatment groups in need for additional pharmacotherapy or weight gain during pregnancy, although myo-inositol was associated with a lower body mass index (BMI) change (mean difference (MD) -1.50 kg/m2; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.35 to -0.65; one trial, n = 73). Myo-inositol was associated with a reduction in the fasting blood glucose concentration at the end of treatment (MD -0.47 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.59 to -0.35; two trials, n = 142 women) compared with the control group. One small trial reported that myo-inositol was associated with a reduction in one-hour post-prandial blood glucose concentration at the end of treatment (MD -0.90 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.73 to -0.07; one trial, n = 73 women) compared with the control group. There was no difference between groups for the two-hour post-prandial blood glucose concentrations between groups (MD -0.70 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.46 to 0.06; one trial, n = 73 women). The one-hour and two-hour blood glucose concentrations show evidence of imprecision associated with wide CIs and small sample size. For the infant, there was no evidence of a difference in the risk for being born large-for-gestational age between the myo-inositol and the control group (risk ratio (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.02 to 8.58; one trial, n = 73 infants; low-quality evidence). The evidence was downgraded due to imprecision. This review's other primary outcomes were not reported in the included trials: perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality); mortality of morbidity composite (as defined by the trials); neurosensory disability. Infants in the myo-inositol group were less likely to have neonatal hypoglycaemia compared with the placebo group (RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.85; one study, n = 73 infants; low-quality evidence). There is evidence of imprecision for this outcome with low event rates and small sample size. There was no evidence of a difference between treatment and placebo groups for preterm birth or birthweight. Myo-inositol was associated with a later gestational age at birth compared with the placebo group (MD 2.10 weeks; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.93; one trial, n = 73 infants). No data were reported for any of the other neonatal outcomes for this review. No long-term outcomes were reported for the mother, infant as a child, infant as an adult, or health service outcomes. Authors' conclusions There are insufficient data to evaluate the effect of myo-inositol for the treatment of gestational diabetes, with no data to examine the majority of outcomes in this review. There do not appear to be any benefits for the infant associated with exposure to myo-inositol such as reduced risk of being born large-for-gestational age. Although the risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia is reduced for the myo-inositol group, there is evidence of imprecision. Evidence from two studies suggested that myo-inositol was associated with a reduced change in maternal BMI and fasting blood sugar concentration compared with placebo. There is a lack of reporting of the clinically meaningful outcomes pre-specified for this review. Uncertainty of the effectiveness of myo-inositol as a treatment for GDM for key maternal and infant outcomes remains and further high- quality trials with appropriate sample sizes are required to further investigate the role of myo-inositol as a treatment or co-treatment for women with gestational diabetes. Future trials should report on the core outcomes for GDM identified in the methods section of this review. Participants of varying ethnicities and with varying risk factors for GDM should be included in future trials. In addition, further trials of myo-inositol for the treatment of GDM should explore the optimal dose, frequency and timing of supplementation, report on adverse effects and assess the long- term effects of this intervention. Economic analysis or health service use and costs should also be included.

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

Background Gestational diabetes, glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy, is a rising problem worldwide. Both non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches to the prevention of gestational diabetes have been, and continue to be explored. Myo-inositol, an isomer of inositol, is a naturally occurring sugar commonly found in cereals, corn, legumes and meat. It is one of the intracellular mediators of the insulin signal and correlated with insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes. The potential beneficial effect on improving insulin sensitivity suggests that myo-inositol may be useful for women in preventing gestational diabetes. Objectives To assess if antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol is safe and effective, for the mother and fetus, in preventing gestational diabetes. Search methods We searched the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP (2 November 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria We sought published and unpublished randomised controlled trials, including conference abstracts, assessing the effects of myo-inositol for the prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Quasi-randomised and cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion, but cluster designs were eligible. Participants in the trials were pregnant women. Women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes were excluded. Trials that compared the administration of any dose of myo-inositol, alone or in a combination preparation were eligible for inclusion. Trials that used no treatment, placebo or another intervention as the comparator were eligible for inclusion. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, risk of bias and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy. Main results We included four randomised controlled trials (all conducted in Italy) reporting on 567 women who were less than 11 weeks' to 24 weeks' pregnant at the start of the trials. The trials had small sample sizes and one trial only reported an interim analysis. Two trials were open-label. The overall risk of bias was unclear. For the mother, supplementation with myo-inositol was associated with a reduction in the incidence of gestational diabetes compared with control (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.64; three trials; n = 502 women). Using GRADE methods this evidence was assessed as low with downgrading due to unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment in two of the included trials and lack of generalisability of findings. For women who received myo-inositol supplementation, the incidence of GDM ranged from 8% to 18%; for women in the control group, the incidence of GDM was 28%, using International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel 2010 criteria to diagnose GDM. Two trials reported on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, a primary maternal outcome of this review. There was no clear difference in risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between the myo-inositol and control groups (average RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.41; two trials; n = 398 women; Tau2 = 3.23; I2 = 69%). Using GRADE methods, this evidence was assessed as very low, with downgrading due to wide confidence intervals with very low event rates, a small sample size, and lack of blinding and unclear allocation concealment methods, and a lack of generalisability. For women who received myo-inositol the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy ranged from 0% to 33%; for women in the control group the risk was 4%. For the infant, none of the included trials reported on the primary neonatal outcomes of this systematic review (large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite). In terms of this review's secondary outcomes, there was no clear difference in the risk of caesarean section between the myo-inositol and control groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.19; two trials; n = 398 women). Using GRADE methods, this evidence was assessed as low, with downgrading due to unclear risk of bias in one trial and lack of generalisability. For women who received myo-inositol supplementation, the risk of having a caesarean section ranged from 34% to 54%; for women in the control group the was 45%. There were no maternal adverse effects of therapy in the two trials that reported on this outcome (the other two trials did not report this outcome). Two trials found no clear difference in the risk of macrosomia between infants whose mothers received myo-inositol supplementation compared with controls (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.02 to 6.37; two trials; n = 398 infants;Tau2 = 3.33; I2 = 73%). Similarly, there was no clear difference between groups in terms of neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.66) or shoulder dystocia (average RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.12 to 44.30, Tau2 = 3.24; I2 = 72%). There was a lack of data available for a large number of maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes, and no data for any of the long-term childhood or adulthood outcomes, or for health service cost outcomes. Authors' conclusions Evidence from four trials of antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol during pregnancy shows a potential benefit for reducing the incidence of gestational diabetes. No data were reported for any of this review's primary neonatal outcomes. There were very little outcome data for the majority of this review's secondary outcomes. There is no clear evidence of a difference for macrosomia when compared with control. The current evidence is based on small trials that are not powered to detect differences in outcomes including perinatal mortality and serious infant morbidity. All of the included studies were conducted in Italy which raises concerns about the lack of generalisability of the evidence to other settings. There is evidence of inconsistency and indirectness and as a result, many of the judgements on the quality of the evidence were downgraded to low or very low quality (GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool). Further trials for this promising antenatal intervention for preventing gestational diabetes are encouraged and should include pregnant women of different ethnicities and varying risk factors and use of myo-inositol (different doses, frequency and timing of administration) in comparison with placebo, diet and exercise or pharmacological interventions. Outcomes should include potential harms including adverse effects.

Background Magnesium sulphate has been used to inhibit preterm labour to prevent preterm birth. There is no consensus as to the safety profile of different treatment regimens with respect to dose, duration, route and timing of administration. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of alternative magnesium sulphate regimens when used as single agent tocolytic therapy during pregnancy. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria Randomised trials comparing different magnesium sulphate treatment regimens when used as single agent tocolytic therapy during pregnancy in women in preterm labour. Quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over and cluster trials were not eligible for inclusion. Health outcomes were considered at the level of the mother, the infant/child and the health service. Intervention: intravenous or oral magnesium sulphate given alone for tocolysis. Comparison: alternative dosing regimens of magnesium sulphate given alone for tocolysis. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data. Main results Three trials including 360 women and their infants were identified as eligible for inclusion in this review. Two trials were rated as low risk of bias for random sequence generation and concealment of allocation. A third trial was assessed as unclear risk of bias for these domains but did not report data for any of the outcomes examined in this review. No trials were rated to be of high quality overall. Intravenous magnesium sulphate was administered according to low-dose regimens (4 g loading dose followed by 2 g/hour continuous infusion and/or increased by 1 g/hour hourly until successful tocolysis or failure of treatment), or high-dose regimens (4 g loading dose followed by 5 g/hour continuous infusion and increased by 1 g/hour hourly until successful tocolysis or failure of treatment, or 6 g loading dose followed by 2 g/hour continuous infusion and increased by 1 g/hour hourly until successful tocolysis or failure of treatment). There were no differences seen between high-dose magnesium sulphate regimens compared with low-dose magnesium sulphate regimens for the primary outcome of fetal, neonatal and infant death (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 1.56; one trial, 100 infants). Using the GRADE approach, the evidence for fetal, neonatal and infant death was considered to be VERY LOW quality. No data were reported for any of the other primary maternal and infant health outcomes (birth less than 48 hours after trial entry; composite serious infant outcome; composite serious maternal outcome). There were no clear differences seen between high-dose magnesium sulphate regimens compared with low-dose magnesium sulphate regimens for the secondary infant health outcomes of fetal death; neonatal death; and rate of hypocalcaemia, osteopenia or fracture; and secondary maternal health outcomes of rate of caesarean birth; pulmonary oedema; and maternal self-reported adverse effects. Pulmonary oedema was reported in two women given high-dose magnesium sulphate, but not in any of the women given low-dose magnesium sulphate. In a single trial of high and low doses of magnesium sulphate for tocolysis including 100 infants, the risk of respiratory distress syndrome was lower with use of a high-dose regimen compared with a low-dose regimen (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.88; one trial, 100 infants). Using the GRADE approach, the evidence for respiratory distress syndrome was judged to be LOW quality. No difference was seen in the rate of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. However, for those babies admitted, a high-dose regimen was associated with a reduction in the length of stay in the neonatal intensive care unit compared with a low-dose regimen (mean difference -3.10 days, 95% confidence interval -5.48 to -0.72). We found no data for the majority of our secondary outcomes. Authors' conclusions There are limited data available (three studies, with data from only two studies) comparing different dosing regimens of magnesium sulphate given as single agent tocolytic therapy for the prevention of preterm birth. There is no evidence examining duration of therapy, timing of therapy and the role for repeat dosing. Downgrading decisions for our primary outcome of fetal, neonatal and infant death were based on wide confidence intervals (crossing the line of no effect), lack of blinding and a limited number of studies. No data were available for any of our other important outcomes: birth less than 48 hours after trial entry; composite serious infant outcome; composite serious maternal outcome. The data are limited by volume and the outcomes reported. Only eight of our 45 pre-specified primary and secondary maternal and infant health outcomes were reported on in the included studies. No long-term outcomes were reported. Downgrading decisions for the evidence on the risk of respiratory distress were based on wide confidence intervals (crossing the line of no effect) and lack of blinding. There is some evidence from a single study suggesting a reduction in the length of stay in the neonatal intensive care unit and a reduced risk of respiratory distress syndrome where a high-dose regimen of magnesium sulphate has been used compared with a low-dose regimen. However, given that evidence has been drawn from a single study (with a small sample size), these data should be interpreted with caution. Magnesium sulphate has been shown to be of benefit in a wide range of obstetric settings, although it has not been recommended for tocolysis. In clinical settings where health benefits are established, further trials are needed to address the lack of evidence regarding the optimal dose (loading dose and maintenance dose), duration of therapy, timing of therapy and role for repeat dosing in terms of efficacy and safety for mothers and their children. Ongoing examination of different regimens with respect to important health outcomes is required.

Background This overview reports on interventions for pain relief and for subfertility in pre-menopausal women with clinically diagnosed endometriosis. Objectives The objective of this overview was to summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on treatment options for women with pain or subfertility associated with endometriosis. Methods Published Cochrane systematic reviews reporting pain or fertility outcomes in women with clinically diagnosed endometriosis were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation (protocols and titles) for future inclusion. The reviews, protocols and titles were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Archie (the Cochrane information management system) in March 2014. Pain-related outcomes of the overview were pain relief, clinical improvement or resolution and pain recurrence. Fertility-related outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events. Selection of systematic reviews, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken in duplicate. Review quality was assessed using the AMSTAR tool. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using GRADE methods. Review findings were summarised in the text and the data for each outcome were reported in 'Additional tables'. Main results Seventeen systematic reviews published in The Cochrane Library were included. All the reviews were high quality. The quality of the evidence for specific comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary studies, inconsistency between the studies, and imprecision in effect estimates. Pain relief (14 reviews) Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues One systematic review reported low quality evidence of an overall benefit for GnRH analogues compared with placebo or no treatment. Ovulation suppression Five systematic reviews reported on medical treatment using ovulation suppression. There was moderate quality evidence that the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUD) was more effective than expectant management, and very low quality evidence that danazol was more effective than placebo. There was no consistent evidence of a difference in effectiveness between oral contraceptives and goserelin, estrogen plus progestogen and placebo, or progestogens and placebo, though in all cases the relevant evidence was of low or very low quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) A review of NSAIDs reported inconclusive evidence of a benefit in symptom relief compared with placebo. Surgical interventions There were two reviews of surgical interventions. One reported moderate quality evidence of a benefit in pain relief following laparoscopic surgery compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. The other reported very low quality evidence that recurrence rates of endometriomata were lower after excisional surgery than after ablative surgery. Post-surgical medical interventions Two reviews reported on post-surgical medical interventions. Neither found evidence of an effect on pain outcomes, though in both cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Alternative medicine There were two systematic reviews of alternative medicine. One reported evidence of a benefit from auricular acupuncture compared to Chinese herbal medicine, and the other reported no evidence of a difference between Chinese herbal medicine and danazol. In both cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Anti-TNF-α drugs One review found no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between anti-TNF-α drugs and placebo. However, the evidence was of low quality. Reviews reporting fertility outcomes (8 reviews) Medical interventions Four reviews reported on medical interventions for improving fertility in women with endometriosis. One compared three months of GnRH agonists with a control in women undergoing assisted reproduction and found very low quality evidence of an increase in clinical pregnancies in the treatment group. There was no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between the interventions in the other three reviews, which compared GnRH agonists versus antagonists, ovulation suppression versus placebo or no treatment, and pre-surgical medical therapy versus surgery alone. In all cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Surgical interventions Three reviews reported on surgical interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that both live births or ongoing pregnancy rates and clinical pregnancy rates were higher after laparoscopic surgery than after diagnostic laparoscopy alone. There was low quality evidence of no difference in effectiveness between surgery and expectant management for endometrioma. One review found low quality evidence that excisional surgery resulted in higher clinical pregnancy rates than drainage or ablation of endometriomata. Post-surgical interventions Two reviews reported on post-surgical medical interventions. They found no evidence of an effect on clinical pregnancy rates. The evidence was of low or very low quality. Alternative medicine A review of Chinese herbal medicine in comparison with gestrinone found no evidence of a difference between the groups in clinical pregnancy rates. However, the evidence was of low quality. Adverse events Reviews of GnRH analogues and of danazol reported that the interventions were associated with higher rates of adverse effects than placebo; and depot progestagens were associated with higher rates of adverse events than other treatments. Chinese herbal medicine was associated with fewer side effects than gestrinone or danazol. Three reviews reported miscarriage as an outcome. No difference was found between surgical and diagnostic laparoscopy, between GnRH agonists and antagonists, or between aspiration of endometrioma and expectant management. However, in all cases the quality of the evidence was of low quality. Authors' conclusions For women with pain and endometriosis, suppression of menstrual cycles with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUD) and danazol were beneficial interventions. Laparoscopic treatment of endometriosis and excision of endometriomata were also associated with improvements in pain. The evidence on NSAIDs was inconclusive. There was no evidence of benefit with post-surgical medical treatment. In women with endometriosis undergoing assisted reproduction, three months of treatment with GnRH agonist improved pregnancy rates. Excisional surgery improved spontaneous pregnancy rates in the nine to 12 months after surgery compared to ablative surgery. Laparoscopic surgery improved live birth and pregnancy rates compared to diagnostic laparoscopy alone. There was no evidence that medical treatment improved clinical pregnancy rates. Evidence on harms was scanty, but GnRH analogues, danazol and depot progestagens were associated with higher rates than other interventions.

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, I2 = 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, I2 = 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.

Background Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory condition defined by the presence of glands and stroma outside the uterine cavity. It occurs in 7% to 10% of all women of reproductive age and may present as pain or infertility. The pelvic pain may be in the form of dysmenorrhoea, dyspareunia or pelvic pain. Initially a combination of estrogens and progestagens was used to create a pseudopregnancy and alleviate the symptoms associated with endometriosis. Progestagens alone or anti-progestagens have been considered as alternatives because they are inexpensive and may have a better side effect profile than other choices. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of both the progestagens and anti-progestagens in the treatment of painful symptoms ascribed to the diagnosis of endometriosis. Search methods We used the search strategy of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group to identify all publications which described or might have described randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any progestagen or any anti-progestagen in the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis. We updated the review in 2011. Selection criteria We considered only RCTs which compared the use of progestagens and anti-progestagens with other interventions, placebo or no treatment for the alleviation of symptomatic endometriosis. Data collection and analysis We have added six new studies, bringing the total of included studies to 13 in the update of this review. The six newly included studies evaluated progestagens (comparisons with placebo, danazol, oral or subdermal contraceptive, oral contraceptive pill and danazol, gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue and other drugs). The remaining studies compared the anti-progestagen gestrinone with danazol, GnRH analogues or itself. Main results The progestagen medroxyprogesterone acetate (100 mg daily) appeared to be more effective at reducing all symptoms up to 12 months of follow-up (MD -0.70, 95% CI -8.61 to -5.39; P < 0.00001) compared with placebo. There was evidence of significantly more cases of acne (six versus one) and oedema (11 versus one) in the medroxyprogesterone acetate group compared with placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in objective efficacy between dydrogesterone and placebo. There was no evidence of a benefit with depot administration of progestagens versus other treatments (low dose oral contraceptive or leuprolide acetate) for reduced symptoms. The depot progestagen group experienced significantly more adverse effects. There was no overall evidence of a benefit of oral progestagens over other medical treatment at six months of follow-up for self-reported efficacy. Amenorrhoea and bleeding were more frequently reported in the progestagen group compared with other treatment groups. There was no evidence of a benefit of anti-progestagens (gestrinone) compared with danazol. GnRH analogue (leuprorelin) was found to significantly improve dysmenorrhoea compared with gestrinone (MD 0.82, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.49; P = 0.02) although it was also associated with increased hot flushes (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to -0.63; P = 0.006). Authors' conclusions There is only limited evidence to support the use of progestagens and anti-progestagens for pain associated with endometriosis.

Background Many women undergoing an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle will not achieve a live birth. Failure at the embryo transfer stage may be due to lack of good-quality embryo/s, lack of uterine receptivity, or the transfer technique itself. Numerous methods, including the use of ultrasound guidance for proper catheter placement in the endometrial cavity, have been suggested as more effective techniques of embryo transfer. This review evaluates the efficacy of ultrasound-guided embryo transfer (UGET) compared with 'clinical touch' (CTET), which is the traditional method of embryo transfer and relies on the clinician's tactile senses to judge when the transfer catheter is in the correct position. Objectives To determine whether ultrasound guidance compared with clinical touch improves pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing embryo transfer during ART cycles. Search methods For the 2016 update of this review, we ran updated searches in the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register (May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library, May 2015), MEDLINE (2009 to May 2015), and EMBASE (2009 to May 2015). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings: American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO). There were no language restrictions. Selection criteria We included only randomised controlled trials. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials and extracted data from those selected. We calculated odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. No outcomes were reported using continuous data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main findings using the GRADE working group methods. Main results This systematic review now has 21 included studies (four of which we added in the 2016 update), two studies awaiting assessment, and 47 excluded studies. In total, data for meta-analyses were available in 21 trials (n = 6218 women), of which only four reported live births. UGET was associated with an increased chance of a live birth/ongoing pregnancy compared with CTET (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.65; 13 trials; n = 5859 women; I2 = 74%; low-quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis by including only trials with low risk of selection bias or by using a random-effects model did not alter the effect. We estimate that for women with a chance of a live birth/ongoing pregnancy of 23% using CTET, this would increase to between 28% and 33% using UGET. We considered the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology to be low. UGET was associated with an increase in the chance of a clinical pregnancy (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.45; 20 trials; n = 6711 women; I2 = 42%; moderate-quality evidence). We identified no differences between groups for the incidence of adverse events including multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage. These events were relatively rare, and sample sizes limited the ability to detect such differences. Authors' conclusions The evidence suggests ultrasound guidance improves the chance of live birth/ongoing and clinical pregnancies compared with clinical touch, without increasing the chance of multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage. Methodological limitations included: only four studies reporting details of both computerised randomisation techniques and adequate allocation concealment, only four studies reported on the outcome of live birth, and none of the nine studies that reported on ongoing pregnancy reported on live birth, suggesting possible reporting bias. Adequate reporting of randomisation and allocation concealment will improve the quality of future studies. The primary outcome measure of future studies should be the reporting of live births per woman randomised.

BACKGROUND: Menorrhagia or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an excessive blood loss that impairs a woman's quality of life, either physical, emotional, social or material. It is benign and not associated with pregnancy or any other gynaecological or systemic disease. Medical treatments used to reduce excessive menstrual blood loss (MBL) include prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors, antifibrinolytics, oral contraceptive pills, and other hormones. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is claimed to have a variety of beneficial effects, inducing a regular shedding of a thinner endometrium and inhibiting ovulation, thus having the effect of both treating HMB and providing contraception. More recently, a contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) has been trialled to investigate whether this treatment can provide similar benefits to COCP while lessening hormonal systemic exposure. This review is an update of a review which originally focused on COCP alone. The scope of the review has been widened to consider other types of delivery of combined hormonal contraceptives for reduction of MBL. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives (pills, vaginal ring or patch) compared with other medical therapies, placebo, or no therapy in the treatment of HMB. A secondary objective was to compare the COCP with the CVR. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Gynecology and Fertility Group trials register, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO (search dates: Oct 1996, May 2002, June 2004, April 2006, June 2009, July 2017 and September 2018) for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of COCP and CVR for the treatment of HMB. We also searched trial registers and the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of COCP or CVR compared with no treatment, placebo, or other medical therapies for women with HMB and regular menstrual cycles. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All assessments of trial quality and data extraction were performed unblinded by at least two review authors. Our primary review outcomes were treatment success, menstrual bleeding (assessed objectively, semi‐objectively or subjectively), and participant satisfaction with treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, quality of life, and haemoglobin level. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight RCTs involving 805 participants. Two trials comparing COCP with placebo were considered to be moderate quality and the remaining studies were low to very low quality, mainly because of serious risk of bias from lack of blinding and concerns over precision. COCP versus placebo COCP, with a step‐down oestrogen and step‐up progestogen regimen, improved response to treatment (return to menstrual 'normality') (OR 22.12, 95% CI 4.40 to 111.12; 2 trials; 363 participants; I(2) = 50%; moderate‐quality evidence), and lowered MBL (OR 5.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 8.40; 2 trials; 339 participants; I(2) = 0%; moderate‐quality evidence) when compared to placebo. The results suggested that, if the chance of 'successful' treatment was 3% in women taking placebo, then COCP increased this chance from 12% to 77% in women with unacceptable HMB. Minor adverse events, in particular breast pain, were more common with COCP. No study in this comparison reported semi‐objectively assessed MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment. COCP versus other medical treatments Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the COCP reduced MBL when compared to NSAIDs (mefenamic acid and naproxen). No study in this comparison reported semi‐objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, participant satisfaction with treatment or adverse events. Levonorgestrel‐releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS) The LNG IUS was more effective than COCP in reducing MBL (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.48; 2 trials; 151 participants; I(2) = 0%; low‐quality evidence) but it was not clear whether satisfaction with treatment or adverse effects varied according to which treatment was used. No study in this comparison reported semi‐objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL. Contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) versus other medical treatments COCP COCP was compared with CVR in two trials. There were discrepancies between some of the findings and there was no evidence of a benefit for one treatment compared to the other for response to treatment, MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment. There was a greater likelihood of nausea with COCP. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL. Progestogens CVR was compared to long course progestogens in one trial. It is possible that CVR increased the odds of satisfaction; but we are uncertain whether CVR improved MBL. The evidence was based on small numbers of participants and was very low quality, so definitive conclusions could not be reached. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, or adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate‐quality evidence suggests that the combined oral contraceptive pill over six months reduces HMB in women with unacceptable HMB from 12% to 77% (compared to 3% in women taking placebo). When compared with other medical options for HMB, COCP was less effective than the LNG IUS. Limited evidence suggested that COCP and CVR had similar effects. There was insufficient evidence to determine comparative efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives with NSAIDs, or long course progestogens.

Background Hirsutism is the presence of excessive hair growth in women and is an important cosmetic condition often resulting in severe distress. The most common cause is by increased production of male sex hormones (androgens). It is also affected by increased sensitivity to androgens in the hair follicles, and secretory glands around hair follicles (sebaceous glands). Spironolactone is an antiandrogen and aldosterone antagonist used to treat hirsutism. Objectives The objective was to investigate the effectiveness of spironolactone and/or in combination with steroids (oral contraceptive pill included) in reducing excess hair growth and/or acne in women. Search methods The Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) trials register was searched (April 2008). The Cochrane MDSG register is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and CENTRAL, handsearching of 20 relevant journals and conference proceedings, and searches of several key grey literature sources. In addition, all reference lists of relevant trials were searched and drug companies contacted for details of unpublished trials. Selection criteria All randomised controlled comparisons of spironolactone versus: placebo, steroids (oral contraceptive pill included), spironolactone of varying dosages, or spironolactone and steroids versus steroids alone when used to reduce hair growth and acne in women. Data collection and analysis Nine trials were included in the review, eight trials were excluded. Two other trials are awaiting assessment. Only one trial studied acne as an outcome, the remainder were concerned with hirsutism. Major outcome measures include the following: subjective observations, Ferriman and Gallwey hair scores, hormonal and biochemical parameters, side effects, sebum production measurement. Main results In the two trials that compared 100 mg of spironolactone with placebo significant differences were reported for subjective improvements in hair growth (OR 7.18, 95% CI 1.96 to 26.28), although not the Ferriman-Galwey score (MD 7.20, 95% CI -10.98 to -3.42)). Data could not be otherwise pooled as only one trial reported an outcome. Authors' conclusions From the studies included in this review, there is some evidence to show that spironolactone is an effective treatment to decrease the degree of hirsutism but there was no evidence for effectiveness for the treatment of acne vulgaris. Studies in this area are scarce and small. Individual study data indicates some superiority of spironolactone over other drugs but results cannot be generalised.