Characteristics of patients presenting with complications of abortion in a tertiary health facility in south-west Nigeria

Objectives: Abortion is associated with significant healthproblem with short- and long-term complications that affect the quality of life of those who are fortunate enough to escape mortality. This study evaluated the population of patients with complications of abortion, identified the abortion providers and the pattern of contraceptive usage in these patients managed in our hospital, and suggests strategies on the required heath intervention.Design: The design was a descriptive study of cases of abortions with complications.Setting and subjects: We reviewed all (225) cases of abortions with complications managed at Ladoke Akintola University of Technology Teaching Hospital, Osogbo, Nigeria, over a five-year period.Outcome measures: Records of patients managed for abortion-related complications were retrieved, data were extracted and analysis was carried out for socio-demographic factors and other abortion-related characteristics.Results: The study showed a more common occurrence of abortions among middle-aged (64.4%), multiparous (53.3%) women with a low socio-economic background (62.6%), and they were performed mostly by medical doctors in private settings (37.8%). The low usage of contraception (11.1%) was of significance.Conclusion: This study provided considerable insight into the complications of abortion in a tertiary institution in Nigeria. Most of the patients were aware of contraception, but usage, which mainly constituted emergency contraception, was low. Despite prophylactic antibiotics, sepsis was the most common observed complication. Healthcare intervention should bere-focused through the encouragement of the adoption of effective methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Healthcare providers should re-appraise their antibiotics regimen.Keywords: unsafe abortion, abortion complications, contraception, Nigeri

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study

Study Question Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? Summary Answer Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements, and a standardized reporting table have been developed. What is Known Already Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. Study Design, Size, Duration Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. Main Results and the Role of Chance Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. Limitations, Reasons for Caution We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. Wider Implications of the Findings A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms, and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set

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

Study Question Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future infertility research be developed? Summary Answer A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. What is Known Already Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. Study Design, Size, Duration A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. Main Results and the Role of Chance The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. Limitations, Reasons for Caution We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold. Wider Implications of the Findings Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Ferility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set

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

STUDY QUESTION Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form

Randomized comparison of effectiveness of unimodal opioid analgesia with multimodal analgesia in post–cesarean section pain management

Adetunji Oladeni Adeniji,1 Oluseyi Olaboyede A Atanda21Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria; 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology Teaching Hospital, Osogbo, NigeriaBackground: Postoperative pain leads to patient discomfort, decreased level of satisfaction, prolonged recovery, and higher health costs. Acute pain control therefore improves the overall quality of life in patients undergoing cesarean section. Pain relief is a fundamental human right, but there is no gold standard for post–cesarean section pain management.Objective: To compare the efficacy of pentazocine and tramadol used in unimodal and multimodal (in combination with piroxicam) approach, in the management of post–cesarean section pain.Materials and methods: This study employed a random allocation design to compare the effectiveness of intramuscular pentazocine (60 mg) or tramadol (100 mg) as single analgesic agent and in combination with daily intramuscular piroxicam 20 mg, for the management of post–cesarean section pain during the immediate 12 hours after surgery. The primary outcome measure was control of postoperative pain, while the secondary outcome measures were the analgesic agent onset of action, duration of action, patient satisfaction, and maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. Data obtained were entered into a predesigned sheet and analyzed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 17. Means ± standard deviation (SD) were calculated for the quantitative variables, and the difference between two independent groups was compared using unpaired Student's t-test. The level of significance was set at 0.05.Results: A total of 120 patients were equally and randomly allocated to four study groups – two that received unimodal analgesia (the pentazocine group and the tramadol group) and two that received multimodal analgesia (the pentazocine-piroxicam group and the tramadol-piroxicam group). Among the unimodal groups, tramadol had a faster onset of action, but pentazocine had a longer duration of action and provided better control of pain. Among the multimodal groups, the combination of pentazocine with piroxicam was superior to the tramadol with piroxicam combination, and it was also more effective than pentazocine alone.Conclusion: The multimodal approach of combining pentazocine with piroxicam is a safe, effective, and an acceptable mode of analgesia for post–cesarean section pain management, especially in a resource-constrained setting.Keyword: NSAID, opiods, piroxicam, tramadol, pentazocin

Gynaegological consultations at Bowen University Teaching Hospital Ogbomoso, Nigeria

Background: Bowen University Teaching Hospital is a mission hospital that has just transformed from a secondary health facility to a tertiary facility. Hence , more challenges have evolved in all disciplines for the hospital. Aim: To determine the pattern of gynaecological consultations at Bowen University Teaching Hospital, and to know the outcome of such consultations. Material & Methods: A well designed form was used to collect the data of each patient as they attend the clinic between October 2010 and 2011. The data form sought among others the following from the patients: name, age, hospital number, address/place of abode, parity, religion, marital status, educational level, complaints at presentation. Result: A total of 230 patients attended the clinic but only 195 (84.8%) of the patients had complete data for analysis. Infertility (75, 38.5%) was the commonest reason for consultation; this was followed by uterine fibroid (46, 23.6%). Conclusion: Infertility was the commonest reason for gynaecological consultations in this newly established teaching hospital, hence, establishment of assisted reproductive technology unit will be highly valuable to these patients who come to the hospital from different parts of southwestern Nigeria, where all assisted reproductive technology units are concentrated in Lagos Keywords: Gynaecological Consultations, Pattern, Mode of Treatmen