0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Excision versus Ablation for Management of Minimal to Mild Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      , , , ,
      Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

          The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and work productivity: a multicenter study across ten countries.

            To assess the impact of endometriosis on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and work productivity. Multicenter cross-sectional study with prospective recruitment. Sixteen clinical centers in ten countries. A total of 1,418 premenopausal women, aged 18-45 years, without a previous surgical diagnosis of endometriosis, having laparoscopy to investigate symptoms or to be sterilized. None. Diagnostic delay, HRQoL, and work productivity. There was a delay of 6.7 years, principally in primary care, between onset of symptoms and a surgical diagnosis of endometriosis, which was longer in centers where women received predominantly state-funded health care (8.3 vs. 5.5 years). Delay was positively associated with the number of pelvic symptoms (chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhoea, dyspareunia, and heavy periods) and a higher body mass index. Physical HRQoL was significantly reduced in affected women compared with those with similar symptoms and no endometriosis. Each affected woman lost on average 10.8 hours (SD 12.2) of work weekly, mainly owing to reduced effectiveness while working. Loss of work productivity translated into significant costs per woman/week, from US$4 in Nigeria to US$456 in Italy. Endometriosis impairs HRQoL and work productivity across countries and ethnicities, yet women continue to experience diagnostic delays in primary care. A higher index of suspicion is needed to expedite specialist assessment of symptomatic women. Future research should seek to clarify pain mechanisms in relation to endometriosis severity. Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis.

              What is the optimal management of women with endometriosis based on the best available evidence in the literature? Using the structured methodology of the Manual for ESHRE Guideline Development, 83 recommendations were formulated that answered the 22 key questions on optimal management of women with endometriosis. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis (2005) has been a reference point for best clinical care in endometriosis for years, but this guideline was in need of updating. This guideline was produced by a group of experts in the field using the methodology of the Manual for ESHRE Guideline Development, including a thorough systematic search of the literature, quality assessment of the included papers up to January 2012 and consensus within the guideline group on all recommendations. To ensure input from women with endometriosis, a patient representative was part of the guideline development group. In addition, patient and additional clinical input was collected during the scoping and review phase of the guideline. NA. The guideline provides 83 recommendations on diagnosis of endometriosis and on the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain and infertility, on the management of women in whom the disease is found incidentally (without pain or infertility), on prevention of recurrence of disease and/or painful symptoms, on treatment of menopausal symptoms in patients with a history of endometriosis and on the possible association of endometriosis and malignancy. We identified several areas in care of women with endometriosis for which robust evidence is lacking. These areas were addressed by formulating good practice points (GPP), based on the expert opinion of the guideline group members. Since 32 out of the 83 recommendations for the management of women with endometriosis could not be based on high level evidence and therefore were GPP, the guideline group formulated research recommendations to guide future research with the aim of increasing the body of evidence. The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the implementation of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. All guideline group members disclosed any relevant conflicts of interest (see Conflicts of interest). NA.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
                Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
                Elsevier BV
                15534650
                March 2021
                March 2021
                : 28
                : 3
                : 587-597
                Article
                10.1016/j.jmig.2020.11.028
                33310168
                a4cbea05-cf27-4142-8771-156994204736
                © 2021

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article