Vaginal dinoprostone versus placebo for pain relief during intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

References

• Buhling KJ, Zite NB, Lotke P, et al. Worldwide use of intrauterine contraception: a review. Contraception. 2014;89(3):162–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1998–2007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black A, Guilbert E, Costescu D, et al. Canadian contraception consensus (part 3 of 4): chapter 7-intrauterine contraception. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016;38(2):182–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merki-Feld GS, Skouby S, Serfaty D, et al. European society of contraception statement on contraception in obese women. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015;20(1):19–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tassi A, Parisi N, Londero AP. Misoprostol administration prior to intrauterine contraceptive device insertion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2020;25(1):76–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown WM, Trouton K. Intrauterine device insertions: which variables matter? J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2014;40(2):117–121.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wildemeersch D, Hasskamp T, Nolte K, et al. A multicenter study assessing uterine cavity width in over 400 nulliparous women seeking IUD insertion using 2D and 3D sonography. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;206:232–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyus R, Lohr P, Prager S, et al. Use of the Mirena LNG-IUS and Paragard CuT380A intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Contraception. 2010;81(5):367–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhling KJ, Hauck B, Dermout S, et al. Understanding the barriers and myths limiting the use of intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women: results of a survey of European/Canadian healthcare providers. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;183:146–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luchowski AT, Anderson BL, Power ML, et al. Obstetrician-gynecologists and contraception: practice and opinions about the use of IUDs in nulliparous women, adolescents and other patient populations. Contraception. 2014;89(6):572–577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbas AM, Abdellah MS, Khalaf M, et al. Effect of cervical lidocaine-prilocaine cream on pain perception during copper T380A intrauterine device insertion among parous women: a randomized double-blind controlled trial. Contraception. 2017;95(3):251–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashour ASA, El Sharkawy M, Ali AS, et al. Comparative efficacy of vaginal misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone administered 3 hours prior to Copper T380A intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020;33(5):559–565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samy A, Ali AS, Latif D, Darweesh FF, et al. Benefits of self-administered vaginal dinoprostone 12 hours before levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous adolescents and young women: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020;33(4):382–387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samy A, Abbas AM, Mahmoud M, et al. Evaluating different pain lowering medications during intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2019;111(3):553–561.e554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shirley M. Dinoprostone vaginal insert: a review in cervical ripening. Drugs. 2018;78(15):1615–1624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu A, Lv J, Hu Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(4):897–906.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inal HA, Ozturk Inal ZH, Tonguc E, et al. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening before diagnostic hysteroscopy in nulliparous women. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(5):1326–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samy A, Abbas AM, Rashwan A, et al. Vaginal dinoprostone in reducing pain perception during diagnostic office hysteroscopy in postmenopausal women: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(4):847–853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashour AS, Nabil H, Yosif MF, et al. Effect of self-administered vaginal dinoprostone on pain perception during copper intrauterine device insertion in parous women: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(4):861–868.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samy A, Kasem MFY, El Lithy A, et al. Prophylactic vaginal dinoprostone administration six hours prior to copper-T380A intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception. 2020;101(3):162–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samy A, Abdelhakim AM, Latif D, Hamza M, et al. Benefits of vaginal dinoprostone administration prior to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion in women delivered only by elective cesarean section: a randomized double-blinded clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020;301(6):1463–1471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todd KH, Funk KG, Funk JP, et al. Clinical significance of reported changes in pain severity. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;27(4):485–489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowbotham MC. What is a “clinically meaningful” reduction in pain? Pain. 2001;94(2):131–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker R, Pierce S, Myers D. The role of prostaglandins E1 and E2, dinoprostone, and misoprostol in cervical ripening and the induction of labor: a mechanistic approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(2):167–179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ireland LD, Allen RH. Pain management for gynecologic procedures in the office. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2016;71(2):89–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kass-Wolff JH, Fisher JE. Evidence-based pain management for endometrial biopsies and IUD insertions. Nurse Pract. 2014;39(3):43–50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaislasuo J, Heikinheimo O, Lähteenmäki P, et al. Predicting painful or difficult intrauterine device insertion in nulligravid women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(2):345–353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos AR, Bahamondes MV, Hidalgo MM, et al. Pain at insertion of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in nulligravida and parous women with and without cesarean section. Contraception. 2013;88(1):164–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coceani F, Bishai I, Lees J, et al. Prostaglandin E2 and fever: a continuing debate. Yale J Biol Med. 1986;59(2):169–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadia Bennett K, Park H, Cioffi J, et al. Comparison of obstetrical outcomes and costs between misoprostol and dinoprostone for induction of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(22):3732–3736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey PS, Harris DY, Ogburn PL, Jr, et al. Comparative efficacy and cost of the prostaglandin analogs dinoprostone and misoprostol as labor preinduction agents. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(2):560–565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastin A, Scanff A, Fraize S, et al. Direct vs. standard method of insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device: insertion pain and outcomes at 6 months. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2019;24(5):399–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christenson K, Lerma K, Shaw KA, et al. Assessment of a simplified insertion technique for intrauterine devices. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;134(1):29–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guerrero JM, Munro MG. Uterine sounding: is there a difference between blind and hysteroscopically directed measurements? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(3):411–417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar