{"paper_id":"08a16309-f3fe-428d-8d7f-a3f20f7cea24","body_text":"INTRODUCTION \nReview question / Objective: To compare \nthe efficacy of uterine artery embolization \n(UAE) with traditional methods for treating \nendometriosis. \nCondition being studied: RCTs of UAE \ncombined with other therapies for the \ntreatment of Ems published in Chinese or \nE n g l i s h ; P a t i e n t s d i a g n o s e d w i t h \nendometriosis according to diagnostic \ncriteria; uterine artery embolization was \nadopted in the observation group, while \nINPLASY 1\nInternational Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols\nINPLASY\nPROTOCOL\nA systematic-review and meta-\nanalysis of the efficacy of uterine \nartery embolization in the treatment \nof endometriosis\nMa, L1; Wen, BX2; Wen ZH3.\nTo cite: Ma et al. A systematic-\nreview and meta-analysis of \nthe efficacy of uterine artery \nembolization in the treatment \nof endometriosis. Inplasy \nprotocol 202280071. doi: \n10.37766/inplasy2022.8.0071\nReceived: 17 August 2022\nPublished: 17 August 2022\nReview question / Objective: To compare the efficacy of \nuterine artery embolization (UAE) with traditional methods for \ntreating endometriosis. \nCondition being studied: RCTs of UAE combined with other \ntherapies for the treatment of Ems published in Chinese or \nEnglish; Patients diagnosed with endometriosis according to \ndiagnostic criteria; uterine artery embolization was adopted in \nthe observation group, while other treatments were adopted \nin the control group.  \nEligibility criteria: Study on the treatment inconsistent with the \nresearch purpose between the observation group and the \ncontrol group; Articles that are published repeatedly or with \nincorrect data; Articles for which outcome indicators could \nnot be extracted. \nINPLASY registration number: This protocol was registered with \nthe International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and \nMeta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY) on 17 August 2022 and was \nlast updated on 17 August 2022 (registration number \nINPLASY202280071). \nCorresponding author: \nZhenhua Wen \nwzhenhua75700@163.com \nAuthor Affiliation:                  \nthe First Hospital of China \nMedical University. \nSupport: None. \nReview Stage at time of this \nsubmission: Completed but \nnot published. \nConflicts of interest:          \nNone declared.\nMa et al. Inplasy protocol 202280071. doi:10.37766/inplasy2022.8.0071\nMa et al. Inplasy protocol 202280071. doi:10.37766/inplasy2022.8.0071 Downloaded from https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-8-0071/\n\nother treatments were adopted in the \ncontrol group. \nMETHODS \nSearch strategy: Databases in English were \nsearched: PubMed, Embase, Web of \nS c i e n c e , C o c h r a n e L i b r a r y, w h i l e \ndatabases in Chinese were searched: \nChina Journal Full-text Database, Wanfang \nDatabase, VIP Database and China \nBiomedical Literature Database. The RCTs \nrelated to EMs after uterine artery \nembolization were retrieved from the \nestablished until June 2022. Use subject to \nmerge search methods for free words. The \nsearch terms were: [uterine artery] \n[embolization endometriosis] [chocolate \ncyst] [Randomized]. \nParticipant or population: Patients \ndiagnosed with endometriosis according to \ndiagnostic criteria (1231). \nIntervention: Evaluated randomized \ncontrolled trials of UAE compared with \nother treatments for endometriosis. \nComparator: None. \nStudy designs to be included: RCTs of UAE \ncombined with other therapies for the \ntreatment of Ems published in Chinese or \nE n g l i s h ; P a t i e n t s d i a g n o s e d w i t h \nendometriosis according to diagnostic \ncriteria; uterine artery embolization was \nadopted in the observation group, while \nother treatments were adopted in the \ncontrol group. \nEligibility criteria: Study on the treatment \ninconsistent with the research purpose \nbetween the observation group and the \ncontrol group; Articles that are published \nrepeatedly or with incorrect data; Articles \nfor which outcome indicators could not be \nextracted. \nInformation sources: Databases in English \nwere searched: PubMed, Embase, Web of \nS c i e n c e , C o c h r a n e L i b r a r y, w h i l e \ndatabases in Chinese were searched: \nChina Journal Full-text Database, Wanfang \nDatabase, VIP Database and China \nBiomedical Literature Database. The RCTs \nrelated to EMs after uterine artery \nembolization were retrieved from the \nestablished until June 2022. Use subject to \nmerge search methods for free words. The \nsearch terms were: [uterine artery] \n[embolization endometriosis] [chocolate \ncyst] [Randomized]. \nM a i n o u t c o m e ( s ) : A c c o r d i n g t o \nliterature[14], it is considered to be \neffective when the clinical symptoms of the \npatient relieve or disappear, the pelvic \nmass shrinks or does not increase, and the \nclinical symptoms of the patient do not \nw o r s e n a f t e r 3 m o n t h s o f d r u g \ndiscontinuation. Patient's clinical \nsymptoms and signs were improved, or \neven worsened, and were considered \ninvalid. 364 patients were included in the 5 \nstudies to compare the difference in the \ntotal effective rate between the two groups, \nwith statistically significant heterogeneity \nbetween the literatures: I2=0.0%, P=0.995. \nTherefore, the fixed-effect model was used \nfor analysis. The results showed that there \nwas no significant difference in the \neffective rate of treatment of endometriosis \nwith UAE and other treatment methods: \n[RR=1.13, 95%CI(0.96,1.34), P<0.05] 244 \npatients were included in the 3 RCTs, with \nstatistically signi ficant heterogeneity \nbetween the literatures: I2=18.7%, P=0.292. \nTherefore, the fixed-effect model was used. \nMeta-analysis showed that serum CA125 \nlevel in UAE group was lower than that in \nt h e c o n t r o l g r o u p : [ S M D = - 0 . 8 5 , \n95%CI(-1.12,-0.59)], P<0.05, indicating that \nthe difference was statistically significant. \nQuality assessment / Risk of bias analysis: \nThe Cochrane ROB 2.0 was used to assess \nthe risk of publication bias from the \naspects of randomization process, \ndeviation from established interventions, \nlack of outcome data, measurement of \nresults, selective reporting bias, and total \nbias. It was conducted independently and \ncross-checked by two researchers. \nStrategy of data synthesis: Literature \ns c re e n i n g w a s c o n d u c t e d b y t w o \ncolleagues independently, and the data \nwere extracted and cross-checked. When \nINPLASY 2Ma et al. Inplasy protocol 202280071. doi:10.37766/inplasy2022.8.0071\nMa et al. Inplasy protocol 202280071. doi:10.37766/inplasy2022.8.0071 Downloaded from https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-8-0071/\n\ndifferences of opinion arose, the two \nresearchers discussed and resolved the \ndifferences with the third researcher. The \nextracted contents mainly include: Basic \ninformation of the literature: author, year of \npublication, title, and source of the article; \nThe evaluation factors of bias risk were as \nfollows: random method, blind method; \nIntervention measure; Outcome indicators. \nSubgroup analysis: None. \nSensitivity analysis: None. \nCountry(ies) involved: China. \nKeywords: uterine artery embolization; \nEndometriosis; Meta analysis.  \nDissemination plans: Uterine artery \nembolization; Endometriosis; Meta-\nanalysis. \nContributions of each author: \nAuthor 1 - Li Ma. \nEmail: mli920910@163.com \nAuthor 2 - bingxin wen. \nEmail: 351345573@qq.com \nAuthor 3 - zhenhua Wen. \nEmail: wzhenhua75700@163.com \nINPLASY 3Ma et al. Inplasy protocol 202280071. doi:10.37766/inplasy2022.8.0071\nMa et al. Inplasy protocol 202280071. doi:10.37766/inplasy2022.8.0071 Downloaded from https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-8-0071/","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}