↓ Skip to main content

Pain relief for women undergoing oocyte retrieval for assisted reproduction

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pain relief for women undergoing oocyte retrieval for assisted reproduction
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004829.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irene Kwan, Rui Wang, Emily Pearce, Siladitya Bhattacharya

Abstract

Various methods of conscious sedation and analgesia (CSA) have been used during oocyte retrieval for assisted reproduction. The choice of agent has been influenced by the quality of sedation and analgesia and by concerns about possible detrimental effects on reproductive outcomes. To assess the effectiveness and safety of different methods of conscious sedation and analgesia for pain relief and pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing transvaginal oocyte retrieval. We searched; the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL, and trials registers in November 2017. We also checked references, and contacted study authors for additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different methods and administrative protocols for conscious sedation and analgesia during oocyte retrieval. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, patient satisfaction, analgesic side effects, and postoperative complications. We included 24 RCTs (3160 women) in five comparisons. We report the main comparisons below. Evidence quality was generally low or very low, mainly owing to poor reporting and imprecision.1. CSA versus other active interventions.All evidence for this comparison was of very low quality.CSA versus CSA plus acupuncture or electroacupunctureData show more effective intraoperative pain relief on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) with CSA plus acupuncture (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.82, 62 women) or electroacupuncture (MD 3.00, 95% CI 2.23 to 3.77, 62 women).Data also show more effective postoperative pain relief (0 to 10 VAS) with CSA plus acupuncture (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.10 to 1.30, 61 women) or electroacupuncture (MD 2.10, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.80, 61 women).Evidence was insufficient to show whether clinical pregnancy rates were different between CSA and CSA plus acupuncture (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.86, 61 women). CSA alone may be associated with fewer pregnancies than CSA plus electroacupuncture (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.66, 61 women).Evidence was insufficient to show whether rates of vomiting were different between CSA and CSA plus acupuncture (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.88, 62 women) or electroacupuncture (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.58, 62 women).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA versus general anaesthesia Postoperative pain relief was greater in the CSA group (0 to 3 Likert: mean difference (MD) 1.9, 95% CI 2.24 to 1.56, one RCT, 50 women).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.35, two RCTs, 108 women, I2 = 0%).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in rates of vomiting (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.75, one RCT, 50 women) or airway obstruction (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.22, one RCT, 58 women). Fewer women needed mask ventilation in the CSA group (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.20, one RCT, 58 women).Evidence was also insufficient to show whether groups differed in satisfaction rates (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.04, two RCTs, 108 women, I2 = 34%; very low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for outcomes of interest.2. CSA + paracervical block (PCB) versus other interventions.CSA + PCB versus electroacupuncture + PCB Intraoperative pain scores were lower in the CSA + PCB group (0 to 10 VAS: MD -0.66, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.39, 781 women, I2 = 76%; low-quality evidence).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29, 783 women, I2 = 9%; low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA + PCB versus general anaesthesiaEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in postoperative pain scores (0 to 10 VAS: MD 0.49, 95% CI -0.13 to 1.11, 50 women; very low-quality evidence).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.26, 51 women; very low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA + PCB versus spinal anaesthesiaPostoperative pain scores were higher in the CSA + PCB group (0 to 10 VAS: MD 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.56, 36 women; very low-quality evidence).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.65, 38 women; very low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA + PCB versus PCBEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.96, 150 women; low-quality evidence) or satisfaction (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.89, 150 women, low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA + PCB versus CSA only Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.36, one RCT, 100 women; very low-quality evidence). Rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting were lower in the CS + PCB group (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97, two RCTs, 140 women, I2 = 40%; very low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest. The evidence does not support one particular method or technique over another in providing effective conscious sedation and analgesia for pain relief during and after oocyte retrieval. Simultaneous use of sedation combined with analgesia such as the opiates, further enhanced by paracervical block or acupuncture techniques, resulted in better pain relief than occurred with one modality alone. Evidence was insufficient to show conclusively whether any of the interventions influenced pregnancy rates. All techniques reviewed were associated with a high degree of patient satisfaction. Women's preferences and resource availability for choice of pain relief merit consideration in practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Unspecified 5 16%
Other 5 16%
Librarian 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 47%
Unspecified 9 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,371,456
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,411
of 9,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,637
of 272,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#114
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,882 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.