No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundFor women seeking permanent contraception, there are a variety of options available including surgical techniques such as tubal ligation or bilateral salpingectomy, in-clinic procedures such as hysteroscopic techniques using micro-inserts, or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraceptive. Despite the various methods available for women who are seeking permanent contraception, there is not a review or decision-making tool that systematically brings together outcomes related to effectiveness, tolerability, adverse effects, non-contraceptive benefits, recovery, or accessibility: all of which are important for shared decision-making between patients and health care providers.MethodsWe registered our protocol [on Prospero: CRD42016038254] following PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy was created in collaboration with a librarian, and three databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science) will be searched along with secondary screening of relevant articles. A third reviewer will adjudicate any discrepancies. Data will be extracted independently according to population, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOS); length of follow-up; and funding. Articles will be assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool. If appropriate, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to rank and analyze each method according to each objective. If heterogeneity between studies is too high or it is not possible to conduct a network meta-analysis, a narrative analysis of the study results will be provided.DiscussionClinicians and their patients seeking permanent contraception have several options, yet we were unable to find a systematic review or decision support tool helping to facilitate shared decision-making. This systematic review can inform patients, providers, and health policy decision-makers about which options of permanent contraception will meet different reproductive goals according to various outcomes, which can lead to better health, social, economic, and mental well-being for reproductive age women. This can also aid our understanding of resulting costs to the health care system.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016038254

Background Multiple options for permanent or long-acting contraception are available, each with adverse effects and benefits. People seeking to end their fertility, and their healthcare providers, need a comprehensive comparison of methods to support their decision-making. Permanent contraceptive methods should be compared with long-acting methods that have similar effectiveness and lower anticipated adverse effects, such as the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraception (LNG-IUC). We aimed to understand the comparability of options for people seeking to end their fertility, using high-quality studies. We sought studies comparing laparoscopic tubal ligation, hysteroscopic tubal occlusion, bilateral salpingectomy, and insertion of the LNG-IUC, for effectiveness, adverse events, tolerability, patient recovery, non-contraceptive benefits, and healthcare system costs among females in high resource countries seeking to permanently avoid conception. Methods We followed PRISMA guidelines, searched EMBASE, Pubmed (Medline), Web of Science, and screened retrieved articles to identify additional studies. We extracted data on population, interventions, outcomes, follow-up, health system costs, and study funding source. We used the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale to assess risk of bias and excluded studies with medium–high risk of bias (NOS < 7). Due to considerable heterogeneity, we performed a narrative synthesis. Results Our search identified 6,612 articles. RG, BV, BC independently reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance. We reviewed the full text of 154 studies, yielding 34 studies which met inclusion criteria. We excluded 10 studies with medium–high risk of bias, retaining 24 in our synthesis. Most studies compared hysteroscopic tubal occlusion and/or laparoscopic tubal ligation. Most comparisons reported on effectiveness and adverse events; fewer reported tolerability, patient recovery, non-contraceptive benefits, and/or healthcare system costs. No comparisons reported accessibility, eligibility, or follow-up required. We found inconclusive evidence comparing the effectiveness of hysteroscopic tubal occlusion to laparoscopic tubal ligation. All studies reported adverse events. All forms of tubal interruption reported a protective effect against cancers. Tolerability appeared greater among tubal ligation patients compared to hysteroscopic tubal occlusion patients. No high-quality studies included the LNG-IUC. Conclusions Studies are needed to directly compare surgical forms of permanent contraception, such as tubal ligation or removal, with alternative options, such as intrauterine contraception to support decision-making. Systematic review registration PROSPERO [CRD42016038254].