FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4231787978> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4231787978 abstract "Background Various methods of conscious sedation and analgesia have been used for pain relief during oocyte recovery in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra‐cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) procedures. The choice of agent has also been influenced by the quality of sedation and analgesia as well as by concerns about possible detrimental effects on reproductive outcomes. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of different methods of conscious sedation and analgesia on pain relief and pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing transvaginal oocyte retrieval. Search methods We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL (from their inception to present); the National Research Register and Current Controlled Trials. We searched reference lists of included studies for relevant studies and contacted authors for information on unpublished and ongoing trials. There was no language restriction. The search was updated in July 2012. Selection criteria Only randomised controlled trials comparing different methods of conscious sedation and analgesia for pain relief during oocyte recovery were included. Data collection and analysis Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two review authors. Interventions were classified and analysed under broad categories or strategies of sedation and pain relief to compare different methods and administrative protocols of conscious sedation and analgesia. Outcomes were extracted and the data were pooled when appropriate. Main results With this update, nine new studies were identified resulting in a total of 21 trials including 2974 women undergoing oocyte retrieval. These trials compared five different categories of conscious sedation and analgesia: 1) conscious sedation and analgesia versus placebo; 2) conscious sedation and analgesia versus other active interventions such as general and acupuncture anaesthesia; 3) conscious sedation and analgesia plus paracervical block versus other active interventions such as general, spinal and acupuncture anaesthesia; 4) patient‐controlled conscious sedation and analgesia versus physician‐administered conscious sedation and analgesia; and 5) conscious sedation and analgesia with different agents or dosage. Evidence was generally of low quality, mainly due to poor reporting of methods, small sample sizes and inconsistency between the trials. Conflicting results were shown for women's experience of pain. Compared to conscious sedation alone, more effective pain relief was reported when conscious sedation was combined with electro‐acupuncture: intra‐operative pain mean difference (MD) on 1 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) of 3.00 (95% CI 2.23 to 3.77); post‐operative pain MD in VAS units of 2.10 (95% CI 1.40 to 2.80; N = 61, one trial, low quality evidence); or paracervical block (MD not calculable). The pooled data of four trials showed a significantly lower intra‐operative pain score with conscious sedation plus paracervical block than with electro‐acupuncture plus paracervical block (MD on 10‐point VAS of ‐0.66; 95% CI ‐0.93 to ‐0.39; N = 781, 4 trials, low quality evidence) with significant statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 76%). Patient‐controlled sedation and analgesia was associated with more intra‐operative pain than physician‐administered sedation and analgesia (MD on 10‐point VAS of 0.60; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.03; N = 379, 4 trials, low quality evidence) with high statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 83%). Post‐operative pain was reported in only nine studies. As different types and dosages of sedative and analgesic agents, as well as administrative protocols and assessment tools, were used in these trials the data should be interpreted with caution. There was no evidence of a significant difference in pregnancy rate in the 12 studies which assessed this outcome, and pooled data of four trials comparing electro‐acupuncture combined with paracervical block with conscious sedation and analgesia plus paracervical block showed an odds ratio (OR) of 0.96 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.29; N = 783, 4 trials) for pregnancy. High levels of women's satisfaction were reported for all modalities of conscious sedation and analgesia as assessed in 12 studies. Meta‐analysis of all the studies was not attempted due to considerable heterogeneity. For the rest of the trials a descriptive summary of the outcomes was presented. Authors' conclusions The evidence from this review of 21 randomised controlled trials did not support one particular method or technique over another in providing effective conscious sedation and analgesia for pain relief during and after oocyte recovery. The simultaneous use of more than one method of sedation and pain relief resulted in better pain relief than one modality alone. The various approaches and techniques reviewed appeared to be acceptable and were associated with a high degree of satisfaction in women. As women vary in their experience of pain and in coping strategies, the optimal method may be individualised depending on the preferences of both the women and the clinicians and resource availability." @default.
• W4231787978 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4231787978 creator A5046238788 @default.
• W4231787978 creator A5059008201 @default.
• W4231787978 creator A5079464717 @default.
• W4231787978 creator A5085122679 @default.
• W4231787978 date "2013-01-31" @default.
• W4231787978 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W4231787978 title "Pain relief for women undergoing oocyte retrieval for assisted reproduction" @default.
• W4231787978 cites W1584935151 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W1925007702 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W1963818408 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W1968898396 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W1976302289 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W1977081607 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W1985222490 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2023185578 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2031418104 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2036833414 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2037121130 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2039758350 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2048267521 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2054094570 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2062022957 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2062661279 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2082929290 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2083571895 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2084025633 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2085660476 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2106917904 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2108142627 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2108346285 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2126846150 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2127710247 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2128147214 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2128289426 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2129360517 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2139676193 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2144908301 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2147774939 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2149668473 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2151340419 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2152393472 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2156713776 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2157913092 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2172155801 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2178965691 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2324127774 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2396018476 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2397095581 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W2406156191 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W4214946045 @default.
• W4231787978 cites W4234945015 @default.
• W4231787978 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004829.pub3" @default.
• W4231787978 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23440796" @default.
• W4231787978 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W4231787978 type Work @default.
• W4231787978 citedByCount "22" @default.
• W4231787978 countsByYear W42317879782013 @default.
• W4231787978 countsByYear W42317879782014 @default.
• W4231787978 countsByYear W42317879782015 @default.
• W4231787978 countsByYear W42317879782017 @default.
• W4231787978 countsByYear W42317879782018 @default.
• W4231787978 countsByYear W42317879782019 @default.
• W4231787978 countsByYear W42317879782020 @default.
• W4231787978 countsByYear W42317879782021 @default.
• W4231787978 countsByYear W42317879782022 @default.
• W4231787978 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4231787978 hasAuthorship W4231787978A5046238788 @default.
• W4231787978 hasAuthorship W4231787978A5059008201 @default.
• W4231787978 hasAuthorship W4231787978A5079464717 @default.
• W4231787978 hasAuthorship W4231787978A5085122679 @default.
• W4231787978 hasBestOaLocation W42317879782 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConcept C2776478404 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConcept C2776814716 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConcept C2777466982 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConceptScore W4231787978C141071460 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConceptScore W4231787978C168563851 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConceptScore W4231787978C17744445 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConceptScore W4231787978C199539241 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConceptScore W4231787978C2776478404 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConceptScore W4231787978C2776814716 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConceptScore W4231787978C2777466982 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConceptScore W4231787978C2779473830 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConceptScore W4231787978C42219234 @default.
• W4231787978 hasConceptScore W4231787978C71924100 @default.
• W4231787978 hasLocation W42317879781 @default.
• W4231787978 hasLocation W42317879782 @default.
• W4231787978 hasLocation W42317879783 @default.
• W4231787978 hasOpenAccess W4231787978 @default.
• W4231787978 hasPrimaryLocation W42317879781 @default.
• W4231787978 hasRelatedWork W1996551696 @default.
• W4231787978 hasRelatedWork W2035444607 @default.

• next