Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of vaginal isoniazid (isonicotinic acid hydrazide [INH]) and vaginal misoprostol in cervical ripening before hysteroscopic surgery. Methods: This randomized controlled trial included patients scheduled for hysteroscopic surgery during April 2016 and June 2017. The inclusion criteria were as follows: postmenopausal women or those at premenopausal age who had not had a vaginal delivery and candidate for diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy with closed cervix before intervention. The INH group (intervention group) received 900 mg of vaginal isoniazid (three 300-mg pills) 6–8 hours before hysteroscopic surgery. The misoprostol group (control group) received 400 micrograms of vaginal misoprostol 6–8 hours before hysteroscopic surgery. Finally, the efficacy of the 2 agents was comparatively analyzed. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. In 67 cases in the INH group (95%) and 45 in the misoprostol group (50%), hysteroscopic entry was successful without additional mechanical dilation, and this difference was statistically significant (P=0.001). The odds ratio (OR) obtained in this study was 0.57 for both INH and misoprostol groups (OR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.43–0.75). Further, 19 cases in the INH group vs. 45 cases in the misoprostol group did not respond to the intervention, indicating statistically significance (P=0.001). Conclusion Vaginal INH is more effective than misoprostol in cervical ripening before hysteroscopic surgery and can be a good alternative to misoprostol.Trial RegistrationIranian Registry Clinical Trial (IRCT) Identifier: IRCT2015112821506N4

Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of vaginal isoniazid (isonicotinic acid hydrazide [INH]) and vaginal misoprostol in cervical ripening before hysteroscopic surgery. Methods: This randomized controlled trial included patients scheduled for hysteroscopic surgery during April 2016 and June 2017. The inclusion criteria were as follows: postmenopausal women or those at premenopausal age who had not had a vaginal delivery and candidate for diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy with closed cervix before intervention. The INH group (intervention group) received 900 mg of vaginal isoniazid (three 300-mg pills) 6–8 hours before hysteroscopic surgery. The misoprostol group (control group) received 400 micrograms of vaginal misoprostol 6–8 hours before hysteroscopic surgery. Finally, the efficacy of the 2 agents was comparatively analyzed. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. In 67 cases in the INH group (95%) and 45 in the misoprostol group (50%), hysteroscopic entry was successful without additional mechanical dilation, and this difference was statistically significant (P=0.001). The odds ratio (OR) obtained in this study was 0.57 for both INH and misoprostol groups (OR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.43–0.75). Further, 19 cases in the INH group vs. 45 cases in the misoprostol group did not respond to the intervention, indicating statistically significance (P=0.001). Conclusion Vaginal INH is more effective than misoprostol in cervical ripening before hysteroscopic surgery and can be a good alternative to misoprostol.Trial RegistrationIranian Registry Clinical Trial (IRCT) Identifier: IRCT2015112821506N4

OBJECTIVE: Endometriosis, a common hormone-dependent chronic inflammatory disease causes various symptoms including pelvic pain, which affect the physical and psychological quality of life in women of reproductive age. The present study aimed to assess the quality of life of Iranian women with endometriosis using the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument, Short Form (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire. METHODS: This cross-sectional study performed in Tehran between October 2014 and July 2016 included 70 Iranian women with endometriosis. The Iranian version of the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire was used to measure quality of life in these women. The Pearson's correlation coefficient, the paired and the independent t-tests, and a linear regression model were used to statistically analyze the data using the SPSS software version 16.0. RESULTS: The total mean score of the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire was 80.58. The highest and the lowest mean scores were observed in the environmental (28.15) and the physical health domains (10.59), respectively. A multiple linear regression model (backward method) showed that insurance coverage was associated with the total WHOQOL-BREF score, whereas age, insurance coverage, and income level were associated with domains 1 through 4, respectively (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Endometriosis affects various aspects of the quality of life of Iranian women who therefore require holistic management focused on both, the physical and psychological aspects of treatment.
Cross-Sectional Studies ; Endometriosis* ; Female ; Global Health* ; Humans ; Insurance Coverage ; Linear Models ; Pelvic Pain ; Quality of Life ; World Health Organization*

Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis study was to determine the pooled estimate of the effect of antenatal magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) on intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) in premature infants. Methods: Two review authors independently searched all randomized clinical trials from international databases, including Medline (PubMed), Web of Sciences, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Research Registers of ongoing trials (ClinicalTrials.gov), from January 1989 to August 2017. Two independent review authors were responsible for data collection. After extracting the necessary information from the evaluated articles, metaanalysis of the data was performed using Stata version 14. Also, sources of heterogeneity among studies were determined by Meta regression. Results: In this study, among 126 articles that were extracted from primary studies, 7 papers that evaluated the effect of MgSO4 on IVH were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that pooled relative risk (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.03) for the effect of MgSO4 on IVH. Conclusion Results of this study showed that although MgSO4 had a protective effect on IVH in premature infants, this effect was not statistically significant. Further studies are needed to determine the best dosage, timing, and gestational age to achieve the optimum effect of MgSO4 on IVH.Systematic Review Registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) Identifier: CRD42019119610

Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis study was to determine the pooled estimate of the effect of antenatal magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) on intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) in premature infants. Methods: Two review authors independently searched all randomized clinical trials from international databases, including Medline (PubMed), Web of Sciences, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Research Registers of ongoing trials (ClinicalTrials.gov), from January 1989 to August 2017. Two independent review authors were responsible for data collection. After extracting the necessary information from the evaluated articles, metaanalysis of the data was performed using Stata version 14. Also, sources of heterogeneity among studies were determined by Meta regression. Results: In this study, among 126 articles that were extracted from primary studies, 7 papers that evaluated the effect of MgSO4 on IVH were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that pooled relative risk (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.03) for the effect of MgSO4 on IVH. Conclusion Results of this study showed that although MgSO4 had a protective effect on IVH in premature infants, this effect was not statistically significant. Further studies are needed to determine the best dosage, timing, and gestational age to achieve the optimum effect of MgSO4 on IVH.Systematic Review Registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) Identifier: CRD42019119610