Search

Sara V Carlini,1 Teresa Lanza di Scalea,2 Stephanie Trentacoste McNally,3 Janice Lester,4 Kristina M Deligiannidis5 1Department of Psychiatry, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA; 2Departments of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences and Women’s Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA; 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Katz Institute for Women’s Health, Queens, NY, USA; 4Health Science Library, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY, USA; 5Departments of Psychiatry, Molecular Medicine, and Obstetrics & Gynecology, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USACorrespondence: Kristina M Deligiannidis, Women’s Behavioral Health, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, 75-59 263rd Street, Glen Oaks, NY, 11004, USA, Tel +1-1-718-470-8184, Fax +1-1 718-343-1659, Email kdeligian1@northwell.eduAbstract: Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) and premenstrual syndrome (PMS) refer to physical, cognitive, or affective symptoms that arise in the late luteal phase and remit with menses. The present work is a clinically focused scoping review of the last twenty years of research on treatment for these disorders. A search of key terms using the PubMed/Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was performed, and 194 studies of adult women met initial inclusion criteria for review. Research studies concerning medications, pharmacological and non-pharmacological complementary and alternative medicine treatments, and surgical interventions with the most available evidence were appraised and summarized. The most high-quality evidence can be found for the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and combined oral contraceptives (COCs), with gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and surgical interventions showing efficacy for refractory cases. While there is some evidence of the efficacy of alternative a

Background & Aims: Several endoscopic methods have been proposed for the treatment of large biliary stones. We assessed the comparative efficacy of these treatments through a network meta-analysis. Methods: Nineteen randomized controlled trials (2752 patients) comparing different treatments for management of large bile stones (>10 mm) (endoscopic sphincterotomy, balloon sphincteroplasty, sphincterotomy followed by endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation [S+EPLBD], mechanical lithotripsy, single-operator cholangioscopy [SOC]) with each other were identified. Study outcomes were the success rate of stone removal and the incidence of adverse events. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis for all treatments, and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria to appraise the quality of evidence. Results: All treatments except mechanical lithotripsy significantly outperformed sphincterotomy in terms of stone removal rate (risk ratio [RR], 1.03–1.29). SOC was superior to other adjunctive interventions (vs balloon sphincteroplasty [RR, 1.24; 95% CIs, 1.07–1.45], vs S+EPLBD [RR, 1.23; range, 1.06–1.42] and vs mechanical lithotripsy [RR, 1.34; range, 1.14–1.58]). Cholangioscopy ranked the highest in increasing the success rate of stone removal (surface under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA] score, 0.99) followed by S+EPLBD (SUCRA score, 0.68). SOC and S+EPLBD outperformed the other modalities when only studies reporting on stones greater than 15 mm were taken into consideration (SUCRA scores, 0.97 and 0.71, respectively). None of the assessed interventions was significantly different in terms of adverse event rate compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy or with other treatments. Post-ERCP pancreatitis and bleeding were the most frequent adverse events. Conclusions: Among patients with large bile stones, cholangioscopy represents the most effective method, in particular in patients with larger (>15 mm) stones, whereas S+EPLBD could, SCOPUS: re.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published