Cochrane · systematic review · CD001298
Fluid and pharmacological agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery
Ahmad, G, Thompson, M, Kim, K, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
24
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
12
Included studies
NR
No studies 12 · 50%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 8.3%Low 4 · 16.7%Moderate 4 · 16.7%High 2 · 8.3%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Show all 2 versionsHydroflotation agents versus no hydroflotation agents (or placebo) for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery
Population: women undergoing gynaecological surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pelvic pain Hydroflotation agents vs no hydroflotation agents (or placebo) | OR 1.05 [0.52, 2.09] | 1 study · 226 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Live birth rate Hydroflotation agents vs no hydroflotation agents (or placebo) | OR 0.67 [0.29, 1.58] | 2 studies · 208 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of adhesions at second‐look laparoscopy Hydroflotation agents vs no hydroflotation agents (or placebo) | OR 0.34 [0.22, 0.55] | 4 studies · 566 participants | High |
Mean adhesion score at second‐look laparoscopy Hydroflotation agents vs no hydroflotation agents (or placebo) | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 722 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Clinical pregnancy rate Hydroflotation agents vs no hydroflotation agents (or placebo) | OR 0.64 [0.36, 1.14] | 3 studies · 310 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events Hydroflotation agents vs no hydroflotation agents (or placebo) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Gel agents versus no gel agents (or placebo) for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery
Population: women undergoing gynaecological surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pelvic pain Gel agents vs no gel agents (or placebo) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Live birth rate Gel agents vs no gel agents (or placebo) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Incidence of adhesions at second‐look laparoscopy Gel agents vs no gel agents (or placebo) | OR 0.26 [0.12, 0.57] | 5 studies · 147 participants | High |
Mean adhesion score at second‐look laparoscopy Gel agents vs no gel agents (or placebo) | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 159 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy rate Gel agents vs no gel agents (or placebo) | OR 0.2 [0.02, 2.02] | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events Gel agents vs no gel agents (or placebo) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Gel agents versus hydroflotation agents used as instillants for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery
Population: women during gynaecological surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pelvic pain Gel agents vs hydroflotation agents used | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Live birth rate Gel agents vs hydroflotation agents used | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Incidence of adhesions at second‐look laparoscopy Gel agents vs hydroflotation agents used | OR 0.5 [0.31, 0.83] | 3 studies · 538 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Mean adhesion score at second‐look laparoscopy Gel agents vs hydroflotation agents used | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 77 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy rate Gel agents vs hydroflotation agents used | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Gel agents vs hydroflotation agents used | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Steroids (any route) versus no steroids (or placebo) for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery
Population: women after gynaecological surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pelvic pain Steroids (any route) vs no steroids (or placebo) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Live birth rate Steroids (any route) vs no steroids (or placebo) | OR 0.65 | 2 studies · 223 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of adhesions at second‐look laparoscopy Steroids (any route) vs no steroids (or placebo) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mean adhesion score at second‐look laparoscopy Steroids (any route) vs no steroids (or placebo) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical pregnancy rate Steroids (any route) vs no steroids (or placebo) | OR 1.01 [0.66, 1.55] | 3 studies · 410 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events Steroids (any route) vs no steroids (or placebo) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |