PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Ahmed Abu-Zaid
AU  - Majed S. Alshahrani
AU  - Nisreen A. Albezrah
AU  - Najlaa T. Miski
AU  - Saud A. Aboudi
AU  - Mohammed Abuzaid
AU  - Osama Alomar
AU  - Hany Salem
AU  - Ismail A. Al-Badawi
AU  - Saeed Baradwan
TI  - Vaginal dinoprostone versus placebo for pain relief during intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
AID  - 10.1101/2020.10.08.20209239
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.10.08.20209239
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/12/2020.10.08.20209239.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/12/2020.10.08.20209239.full
AB  - Objective To investigate the safety and efficacy of vaginal dinoprostone versus placebo in pain relief during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.Setting Not applicable.Patient(s) Women undergoing IUD insertion and receiving vaginal dinoprostone or placebo.Intervention(s) PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were screened from inception to 01-October-2020, using the following search strategy: (dinoprostone OR cervidil OR prepidil) AND (intrauterine device OR iud).Main outcome measure(s) IUD insertion related pain, patient satisfaction, provider ease of IUD insertion, and side effects.Result(s) Five studies met the study inclusion criteria, comprising 862 patients; equally 431 patients received vaginal dinoprostone and placebo. All studies had an overall low risk of bias. When compared to placebo, dinoprostone significantly correlated with decreased pain at tenaculum placement (SMD=−0.79, 95% CI [−1.43, −0.16], p=0.01), decreased pain at uterine sounding (SMD=−0.88, 95% CI [−1.54, −0.22], p=0.009), decreased pain at IUD insertion (SMD=−1.18, 95% CI [−1.74, −0.61], p<0.001), decreased need for additional analgesia (RR=0.34, 95% CI [0.22, 0.53], p<0.001), increased patient satisfaction (SMD=1.41, 95% CI [0.62, 2.20], p<0.001), and increased provider ease of IUD insertion (SMD=−1.17, 95% CI [−1.62, −0.73], p<0.001). Fever was statistically significantly higher in dinoprostone versus placebo group (RR=3.73, 95% CI [1.47, 9.44], p=0.006). All other side effects—including nausea, vomiting, shivering, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, vasovagal attack, uterine perforation, and postprocedural bleeding—did not substantially differ between both groups.Conclusions This first ever meta-analysis advocates that dinoprostone is safe, effective, and yields favorable analgesic outcomes during IUD insertion.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNoneAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not requiredAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll relevant data are included in the article and/or its supplementary information files.