促性腺激素释放激素激动剂延长给药间隔治疗子宫内膜异位症和子宫腺肌病系统评价-妇产科学专业论文.docxVIP

randomization，concealment of allocation and blinding．Meta-analysis based on included studies showed that there were no significant difference between the traditional dosing and the extended-interval dosing for the outcome of the reliving rate of dysmenorrhea or reduction of uterine volume ．One of these included studies had analyzed the volume of the lesion. It showed that the volume of the lesion reduced ≥ 1/ 3 i n 82% patients treated with both the new regimen and the convention regimen after 6 months,the former was 81%(13/16) and the later was 82%(18/22).There was not statistically significant(P 0. 05) in the two groups . The level of luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and estradiol (E2) in the two groups were decreased significantly.The E2 levels were reduced to the postmenopausal leved.The hormone profile of the experimental group was similar to that of the control group(p0.05) except the E2 level behind 24 weeks .After 24 weeks of the tratment,the levels of E2 in the new group are higher than that in the troditional group.Three of four included studies describing the side effects show that no patients in both the two groups had experienced climacteric symptoms such as hot flushes, sweats, and vaginal dryness by the mid-point of the treatment period (3 months).During the second half of the treatment period,the side effects occured with a varying degrees in the two groups.Nevertheless,for both groups,these side effects were mild and tolerated.A comparison of the recurrence rates of dismenorrhoea in the 3 included studies show that there was not statistically significant between the two groups. Conclusion The limited evidence showed that there were no significant difference between the extended-interval dosing regimen of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist and the troditional regimen for the outcomes of the reliving rate of dysmeno- rrhea , reduction of uterine volume, the level of hormone or disease recurrence , but the cost