| Literature DB >> 35586704 |
Shiwei Tang1, Mingxin Kong1, Xinjian Zhao2, Jun Chen3, Chen Wang3, Haibin Zhang1, Zhongmin Wang3,4.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to systematically review the safety and efficacy of uterine artery embolization (UAE) versus surgery for symptomatic uterine fibroids. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: meta-analysis; surgery; uterine artery embolization
Year: 2019 PMID: 35586704 PMCID: PMC8607464 DOI: 10.19779/j.cnki.2096-3602.2018.02.10
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Interv Med ISSN: 2590-0293
Figure 1.PRISMA diagram.
Characteristics of the included studies.
| Study | Country | Study type | Experim-ental (T) | Control (c) | PVA (μm) | Cases (T/C) | Age (Mean±SD (Min-Max) years) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T | C | |||||||
| Pinto 2003( | Spain | RCT | UAE | HY | 400-600 | 4017 | 46.4±44 (35-55) | 44.6±5.0 (35-57) |
| Mara 2006-2008( | Australian | RCT | UAE | MY | 500-900 | 58/63 | 32.4±- (--) | 32.0±- (--) |
| Ruuskanen 2010( | Finland | RCT | UAE | HY | 550-700 | 27/30 | 48.5±3.6 (41-57) | 48.3±3.9 (39-56) |
| EMMY 2005-2013(9-12) | Netherlands | RCT | UAE | HY | 355-500 | 88-89 | 44.6±48 (--) | 45.4±4.2 (--) |
| REST 2007-2013 ( | England | RCT | UAE | HY/MY | 500-710 | 10651 | 43.6±5.5 (--) | 43.3±7.1 (--) |
| Manyonda 2012 ( | England | RCT | UAE | MY | 355-500 | 82-81 | 44 ± 5.7 (31-50) | 43.2±5.3 (31-50) |
| Jun 2012 ( | China | RCT | UAE | HY/MY | 500-700 | 63/64 | 41 ± 3.5 (28-49) | 43.5 ± 5.1 (32-55) |
Bias risk assessment.
| Study | Random sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blinding | Incomplete outcome data | Selective reporting | Other bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pinto 2003 | • | • | • | • | ||
| Mara 2006-2008 | • | • | • | • | • | |
| Ruuskanen 2010 | • | • | • | |||
| EMMY 2005-2013 | • | • | • | • | • | |
| REST 2007-2013 | • | • | • | • | • | |
| Manyonda 2012 | • | • | • | • | • | |
| Jun 2012 | • | • | • | • | • |
Low: • high:
Quality of the evidence (GRADE).
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative Effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assumed risk: surgery | Corresponding risk: UAE | ||||
| Patiente satisfaction (1-2 years) | 861 per 1000 | 853 per 1000 | OR 0.94 | 640 | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ○○ |
| (785 to 901) | (0.59 to 1.48) | (6 studies) | moderate ① | ||
| Minor post-procedural complica tions (1 year) | 259 per 1000 | 431 per 1000 | OR 2.17 | 795 | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ○ |
| (785 to 901) | (785 to 901) | (6 studies) | moderate ① | ||
| Major post-procedural complica tions (1 year) | 85 per 1000 | 50 per 1000 | OR 0.56 | 737 | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ○ |
| (785 to 901) | (0.32 to 0.99) | (7 studies) | moderate ① | ||
| Hospital stay | 2.83 lower | 800 | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ○ | ||
| (3.65 to 2.02 lower) | (7 studies) | moderate ① | |||
| Recovery time | 19.19 lower | 588 | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ○ | ||
| (25.24 to 13.14 lower) | (6 studies) | moderate ① | |||
| Further interventions | 72 per 1000 | 214 per 1000 | OR 3.5 | 694 | ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ○ |
| (2 years) | (785 to 901) | (2.1 to 5.83) | (6 studies) | moderate ① | |
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval. ① No blinding GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect is close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
Figure 2.A: Patient satisfaction at the 1-2-year follow-up. B: Patient satisfaction at the 5-year follow-up. C: Intra-operative complications.
Figure 3.A: Minor post-procedural complications within 1 year. B: Major post-procedural complications within 1 year. C: Hospital stay (excluding the heterogeneous studies).
Figure 4.A: Recovery time (excluding the heterogeneous studies). B: Further interventions at the 2-year follow-up. C:Further interventions at the 5-year follow-up.