RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Colposcopy is an office gynecological procedure used for cervical evaluation in patients with abnormal cervical cytology. It is considered an important tool for early detection of cases of cervical cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence from published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) about the efficacy of local anesthetics in pain relief during colposcopic-guided biopsy. DATA SOURCES: Several electronic databases included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ISI and Scopus were searched using the relevant MeSH terms. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: All RCTs assessing the effect of local anesthetics in relieving pain during colposcopy were considered for this meta-analysis. There were 1339 studies identified of which 11 studies deemed eligible for this review. We performed quality and risk of bias assessment for all included studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Three researchers independently extracted the data from the individual articles and entered it into RevMan software. The extracted outcomes included pain scores and the duration of the procedure. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs were included. Local anesthesia (LA) was associated with higher pain at speculum insertion than control (SMD = 0.23, 95% CI [0.03, 0.43]). While, LA significantly reduced biopsy pain than control (SMD= -0.57, 95% CI [-0.94, -0.20]). The overall pooled estimate showed no significant difference between LA and control regarding postprocedural pain, pain on endocervical curettage, pain expectancy, and overall pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that local anesthetics are effective in pain relief during a colposcopic-guided biopsy; however there is no strong evidence to recommend its use in current practice.
Asunto(s)
Anestésicos Locales/uso terapéutico , Biopsia/efectos adversos , Colposcopía/efectos adversos , Dolor Asociado a Procedimientos Médicos/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Dolor Asociado a Procedimientos Médicos/etiología , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Bone metastasis is reported to be associated with poor quality of life, and increased risk of hospitalization. We aim to synthesize evidence from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the efficacy of denosumab versus bisphosphonates in patients with advanced cancers. METHODS: We searched for all published RCTs in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central. Retrieved records were screened for eligibility. Time-to-event data were pooled as hazard ratio (HR) using the generic inverse-variance method and dichotomous data were pooled as relative risk (RR) in a random-effect model. We used Review Manager 5.3 for windows. RESULTS: Six unique RCTs with a total of 7722 patients were included. Overall effect estimates favored denosumab group in comparison to intravenous (IV) bisphosphonates in the following terms: time to first skeletal-related events (HR 0.92, 95% CI [0.86, 0.98], p = 0.01), time to subsequent skeletal-related event (RR 0.92, 95% CI [0.86, 0.99], p = 0.03), and radiation to bone (RR 0.81, 95% CI [0.71, 0.92], p = 0.02). Denosumab group was associated with increased risk of grade 3 or 4 hypocalcaemia (RR 1.99, 95% CI [1.11, 3.54], p = 0.02) and reduced risk of renal impairment or toxicity (RR 0.75, 95% CI [0.61, 0.91], p = 0.003) in comparison to IV bisphosphonates group. Pooled studies were homogenous. CONCLUSION: Denosumab showed a favorable significant impact on delaying the time to first skeletal-related event and reducing the incidence of radiation to the bone event in comparison to bisphosphonates, with similar efficacy regarding overall survival and time to disease progression. Further large-scale and long-term studies are needed to clarify the long-term efficacy and safety of both regimens.