Abstract
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 Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
None
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not required
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data are included in the article and/or its supplementary information files.
