Surgical intervention versus expectant management for endometrial polyps in subfertile women

BACKGROUND: Endometrial polyps, which are benign growths of the endometrium, may be a factor in female subfertility. Possible mechanisms include physical interference with gamete transport, alteration of the endometrial milieu and unresponsiveness to the cyclical global endometrial changes. As such polyps remain mostly asymptomatic, their diagnosis is often incidental during routine investigations prior to embarking on assisted reproductive treatment. Transvaginal sonography, hysterosalpingography and saline infusion sonography are the diagnostic tools most commonly employed. However, hysteroscopy remains the gold standard for diagnosis, as well as for treatment. Due to the possible effect of endometrial polyps on fertility, their removal prior to any subfertility treatment is widely practiced. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of removal of endometrial polyps in subfertile women. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic databases were searched, including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and trial registers. The reference lists of identified articles were checked. The last search was performed on 30 July 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials, reporting pregnancy or live birth rates and complication rates as primary or secondary outcomes, in which polyps were removed surgically prior to treatment of subfertility were eligible for inclusion. The diagnosis of endometrial polyps was required to be made by transvaginal ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, saline infusion, sono-hysterography or hysteroscopy. Any surgical technique of polyp removal was acceptable, with no intervention in the control groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles, abstracts and full articles to assess their suitability for inclusion in this review. Quality assessment was attempted independently by two authors with discrepancies being settled by consensus or consultation with a third review author.No data extraction was performed due to the absence of useable data in the one eligible study. If there had been data to include, two review authors would have independently extracted the data from the studies using a data extraction form designed and pilot tested by the authors. Any disagreements would have been resolved by discussion or by a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: Only one randomised controlled trial of endometrial polypectomy was identified for inclusion. However, a single set of data could not be extracted from this study due to internal inconsistencies of the results reported. Attempts to contact the authors to resolve the issue were unsuccessful, by phone, post and e-mail. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Removal of endometrial polyps in subfertile women is commonly being performed in many countries with an aim to improve the reproductive outcome. We did not identify any analysable randomised trials which would allow us to reach any sound scientific conclusions on the efficacy of endometrial polypectomy in subfertile women. Well designed, methodologically sound, randomised controlled trials are urgently needed

Surgical intervention versus expectant management for endometrial polyps in subfertile women

BACKGROUND: Endometrial polyps, which are benign growths of the endometrium, may be a factor in female subfertility. Possible mechanisms include physical interference with gamete transport, alteration of the endometrial milieu and unresponsiveness to the cyclical global endometrial changes. As such polyps remain mostly asymptomatic, their diagnosis is often incidental during routine investigations prior to embarking on assisted reproductive treatment. Transvaginal sonography, hysterosalpingography and saline infusion sonography are the diagnostic tools most commonly employed. However, hysteroscopy remains the gold standard for diagnosis, as well as for treatment. Due to the possible effect of endometrial polyps on fertility, their removal prior to any subfertility treatment is widely practiced. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of removal of endometrial polyps in subfertile women. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic databases were searched, including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and trial registers. The reference lists of identified articles were checked. The last search was performed on 30 July 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials, reporting pregnancy or live birth rates and complication rates as primary or secondary outcomes, in which polyps were removed surgically prior to treatment of subfertility were eligible for inclusion. The diagnosis of endometrial polyps was required to be made by transvaginal ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, saline infusion, sono-hysterography or hysteroscopy. Any surgical technique of polyp removal was acceptable, with no intervention in the control groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles, abstracts and full articles to assess their suitability for inclusion in this review. Quality assessment was attempted independently by two authors with discrepancies being settled by consensus or consultation with a third review author.No data extraction was performed due to the absence of useable data in the one eligible study. If there had been data to include, two review authors would have independently extracted the data from the studies using a data extraction form designed and pilot tested by the authors. Any disagreements would have been resolved by discussion or by a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: Only one randomised controlled trial of endometrial polypectomy was identified for inclusion. However, a single set of data could not be extracted from this study due to internal inconsistencies of the results reported. Attempts to contact the authors to resolve the issue were unsuccessful, by phone, post and e-mail. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Removal of endometrial polyps in subfertile women is commonly being performed in many countries with an aim to improve the reproductive outcome. We did not identify any analysable randomised trials which would allow us to reach any sound scientific conclusions on the efficacy of endometrial polypectomy in subfertile women. Well designed, methodologically sound, randomised controlled trials are urgently needed

Endometrial injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to express our appreciation to Dra Abha Maheshwari for her important authorial contribution to the previous version of this review. We also acknowledge the important help provided by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group team, specially by Marian Showell, Trials Search Co-ordinator; by Helen Nagels, Managing Editor; and by Prof. Cindy Farquhar, Co-ordinating Editor. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the following investigators, who provided essential information for the preparation of this review: TK Aleyamma, Erin F Wolff, Lukasz Polanski, Nava Dekel, Neeta Singh, Suleyman Guven and Tracy YeungPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Native Apps versus Web Apps: which is best for healthcare applications?

Smartphone applications (Apps) provide a new way to deliver healthcare, illustrated by the fact that healthcare Apps are estimated to make up over 30% of new Apps currently being developed; with this number seemingly set to increase as the benefits become more apparent. In this paper, using the development of an In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) treatment stress study App as the exemplar, the alternatives of Native App and Web App design and implementa-tion are considered across several factors that include: user interface, ease of development, capabilities, performance, cost, and potential problems. Development for iOS and Android platforms and a Web App using JavaScript and HTML5 are discussed

Heparin for assisted reproduction (Review)

Abstract BACKGROUND: Heparin as an adjunct in assisted reproduction (peri-implantation heparin) is given at or after egg collection or at embryo transfer during assisted reproduction. Heparin has been advocated to improve embryo implantation and clinical outcomes. It has been proposed that heparin enhances the intra-uterine environment by improving decidualisation with an associated activation of growth factors and a cytokine expression profile in the endometrium that is favourable to pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the administration of heparin around the time of implantation (peri-implantation heparin) improves clinical outcomes in subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive and exhaustive search strategy was developed in consultation with the Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG). The strategy was used in an attempt to identify all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress). Relevant trials were identified from both electronic databases and other resources (last search 6 May 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included where peri-implantation heparin was given during assisted reproduction. Peri-implantation low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) during IVF/ICSI was given at or after egg collection or at embryo transfer in the included studies. Live birth rate was the primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and quality of trials and extracted relevant data. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: Three RCTs (involving 386 women) were included in the review.Peri-implantation LMWH administration during assisted reproduction was associated with a significant improvement in live birth rate compared with placebo or no LMWH (odds ratio (OR) 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 2.90, three studies, 386 women, I(2) = 51%, very low quality evidence with high heterogeneity). There was also a significant improvement in the clinical pregnancy rate with use of LMWH (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.53, three studies, 386 women, I(2) = 29%, very low quality evidence with low heterogeneity).However these findings should be interpreted with extreme caution as they were dependent upon the choice of statistical method: they were no longer statistically significant when a random-effects model was used.Adverse events were poorly reported in all included studies, with no comparative data available. However, LMWH did cause adverse effects including bruising, ecchymosis, bleeding, thrombocytopenia and allergic reactions. It appeared that these adverse effects were increased if heparin therapy was used over a longer duration. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this Cochrane review of three randomised controlled trials with a total of 386 women suggested that peri-implantation LMWH in assisted reproduction treatment (ART) cycles may improve the live birth rate in women undergoing assisted reproduction. However, these results were dependent on small low quality studies with substantial heterogeneity, and were sensitive to the choice of statistical model. There were side effects reported with use of heparin, including bruising and bleeding, and no reliable data on long-term effects. The results do not justify this use of heparin outside well-conducted research trials.These findings need to be further investigated with well-designed, adequately powered, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre trials. Further investigations could also focus on the effects of the local (uterine) and not systemic application of heparin during ART

Men, chronic illness and healthwork: accounts from male partners of women with endometriosis

Currently dominant in medical discourse, the concept of self‐management sees the responsibility for health and illness shift from the state to the individual. However, while this emphasis on individual responsibility and management has burgeoned, the role and status of partners and other family members in the management of chronic illness remains under‐theorised. While self‐management privileges individual responsibility for the management of chronic illness, the role of partners remains unclear. This paper utilises data from a study of heterosexual couples’ experiences of living with the chronic gynaecological condition endometriosis to explore how male partners engage in its day‐to‐day management. In all, 22 couples participated in in‐depth, semi‐structured interviews with each partner interviewed separately (n = 44). Data were analysed thematically and dyadically, informed by an interpretivist relational approach. The paper utilises the concept of healthwork to describe the illness work, everyday life work, biographical work and emotion work men engaged in. The paper demonstrates how the conceptual value of healthwork is enhanced by incorporating an analysis of the emotional effort required in managing chronic illness. The paper illustrates the value of investigating the role of partners in managing chronic illness to provide a fuller account of the distributed and relational nature of healthwork

Evaluation of progestogen supplementation for luteal phase support in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles

© 2019 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of progestogen supplementation in improving clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing fresh IVF cycles and to compare different routes, start times, durations, and estrogen coadministration regimen. Design: Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting: University. Patient(s): Women undergoing fresh IVF cycles who did and did not receive progestogen supplementation. Intervention(s): Summary odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by binomial logistic regression. Main Outcome Measure(s): Clinical pregnancy rates. Result(s): Eighty-two articles (26,726 women) were included. Clinical pregnancy rates were increased by IM (OR = 4.57), vaginal (OR = 3.34), SC (OR = 3.36), or oral (OR = 2.57) progestogen supplementation versus no treatment. The greatest benefit was observed when progestogens were supplemented IM versus vaginally (OR = 1.37). The optimal time to commence administration was between oocyte retrieval and ET (OR = 1.31), with oocyte retrieval +1 day being most beneficial. Coadministration of estrogen had no benefit (OR = 1.33), whether progestogens were coadministered vaginally or IM. Clinical pregnancy rates were equivalent when progestogen supplementation was ceased after ≤3 weeks or continued for up to 12 weeks (OR = 1.06). Conclusion(s): This broad-ranging meta-analysis highlights the need to reevaluate current clinical practice. The use of progestogens in fresh IVF cycles is substantially beneficial to clinical pregnancy. Critically, the use of IM progestogens should not be dismissed, as it yielded the greatest clinical pregnancy rates. Pregnancy success was impacted by initiation of therapy, with 1 day after oocyte retrieval being optimal. There is little evidence to support coadministration of estrogen or prolonging progestogen treatment beyond 3 weeks

User requirements for the development of smartphone self-reporting applications in healthcare

Two case studies of the development of Smartphone self-reporting mHealth applications are described: a wellness diary for asthma management combined with Bluetooth pulse oximeter and manual peak flow measurements; and a questionnaire for ecological assessment of distress during fertility treat-ment. Results are presented of user experiences with the self-reporting applica-tion and the capture of physiological measurements in the case of the asthma diary project and the findings from a phone audit at an early stage of design in the case of the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) study. Issues raised by ethics commit-tees are also discussed. It is concluded that the optimal adoption of Smartphone self-reporting applications will require a good appreciation of user and ethics panel requirements at an early stage in their development, so that the correct de-sign choices can be made