Current Issue : October - December Volume : 2015 Issue Number : 4 Articles : 5 Articles
Purpose To determine whether an optimal method exists\nfor the detection of the luteinising hormone (LH) surge\nonset in research datasets of urinary hormonal profiles of\nmenstrual cycles.\nMethods The scientific literature was searched to compare\npublished methodologies for detection of the LH surge\nonset in urine. Their performance was tested using complete\nhormonal profiles from 254 ovulatory cycles from\n227 women attempting pregnancy (normal regular menstrual\ncycles; no known infertility).\nResults Three major methodologies to determine the onset\nof the LH surge in urine were identified. The key difference\nbetween these methods is how the cycle days that\ncontribute to LH baseline assessment are determined: using\nfixed days (method #1), based on peak LH day (method\n#2), based on a provisional estimate of the LH surge\n(method #3). Method #1 requires no prior cycle information,\nwhereas methods #2 and #3 need to consider complete\ncycle data. The most reliable method for calculation of\nbaseline LH was using 2 days before the estimated surge\nday, plus the previous 4/5 days.\nConclusions Different methods for identification of the\nurinary LH surge can provide very different determinations\nof LH surge day, thus care must be taken when comparing\nbetween studies that apply different methodologies. The\noptimal method for determining the onset of the LH surge\nin urine requires retrospective estimation of day of LH\nsurge to identify the most appropriate part of the cycle to\nconsider as the baseline. This method can be adopted for\napplication in population studies....
Introduction: Tanzania is among of the African countries with high maternal and child mortality\nrates and fast growing population. It also has high fertility rate and a huge unmet need for family\nplanning. Contraceptive use reported to avert more than 1 million maternal deaths in Sub-Saharan\nAfrica due to decline in fertility rate and thus help to achieve MDG 4 and 5. Therefore, this study\naimed to determine factors influencing modern contraceptive use among women aged 15 - 49\nyears in Tanzania. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of Tanzania Demographic Health Survey\n(TDHS), 2010. A total of 475 clusters (urban and rural) composed of 9663 households were\nselected. During the survey, a total of 10,139 women aged 15 - 49 years were interviewed about\nsexual and reproductive matters using a standardized questionnaire. We restricted our analysis to\nmarried/cohabiting women (n = 6412) responded for in individual records and domestic violence\n(n = 4471). Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed using Stata version\n11.0. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for determinants of modern contraceptive\nuse were estimated. A P value of 5% (2 tails) was considered statistically significant. Results:\nWomen empowerment (OR = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.13 - 1.63), male-female age difference of less or equal\nto nine (OR = 1.6; 95 CI: 1.01 - 2.66), and advice given at health care facilities on family planning\n(OR = 1.6; 95 CI: 1.37 - 1.96) were predictors of modern contraceptive use. Woman sexual violence...
The aim of the present study was to measure\nlanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), europium (Eu), and gadolinium\n(Gd) concentrations in human semen and correlate\nthe results with sperm quality. The median semen content\nof La was 19.5 lg kg-1 dry weight (dw) (range 2.27ââ?¬â??269),\nof Ce was 41.9 lg kg-1 dw (range 4.52 to 167), of Eu was\n0.68 lg kg-1 dw (range 0.06ââ?¬â??1.95), of Gd was\n3.19 lg kg-1 dw (range 0.38ââ?¬â??12.0), and of calcium (Ca)\nwas 4063 mg kg-1 dw (range 484ââ?¬â??17,191). Concentrations\nof La, Ce, Eu, Gd, and Ca were significantly lower in\nnondrinkersââ?¬â?¢ semen than in semen from drinkers. Significant\ndifferences were detected between La, Ce, Eu, Gd,\nand Ca concentrations in semen from nondrinkers and\nmoderate drinkers. Concentrations of La, Ce, and Gd in\nsemen of short-term smokers were significantly lower than\nthose in extremely long-term smokers. Significant differences\nwere also detected between La concentration in semen\nfrom a group of short-term smokers and that of a\ngroup of long-term smokers. Positive correlations were\nfound between La, Ce, Eu, Gd, and Ca concentrations in...
Purpose This review aims to objectively assess the efficacy\nand safety of uterine manipulators as reported in\nscientific literature. Furthermore, it evaluates as to which\nmanipulator best suits which surgical procedure.\nMethods PubMed, Embase,Web of Science,COCHRANE,\nCINAHL, Academic Search Premier, Science Direct and the\nMAUDE database were searched. Technical information was\nretrieved from the manufacturers.\nResults 25 articles covering 10 uterine manipulators were\nfound. Studies regarding implementation and use of manipulators\nare scarce; only two surveys were found comparing\ndifferent manipulators. Moreover, clinical evidence\nproving the efficacy of manipulators with respect to prevention\nof complications, inherent to laparoscopic surgery,\ndoes not exist.\nConclusion The use of uterine manipulators is well\nestablished and it is clear that uterine manipulators offer\nthe easiest way to handle the uterus during surgery. However,\ndetailed information regarding efficacy and safety is\nscarce. Clinical evidence substantiating the assumed\nmechanism of prevention of ureter injuries was not found.\nOur review did not find the optimal manipulator. Some are\nmore versatile than others and not all instruments are appropriate\nfor all types of surgery. Therefore, gynecologists\nshould choose the manipulator that best suits the type of\nsurgery that is performed....
We disagree with Boyleââ?¬â?¢s recent article questioning our systematic review in Journal of Sexual\nMedicine in 2013 (Volume 10, pages 2644-2657). In particular, he disputed the quality ranking we\nassigned to 7 of the 36 articles that met our inclusion criteria. These had been ranked for quality\nby the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) grading system. We found that, ââ?¬Å?the\nhighest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual\nfunction, sensitivity, sexual sensation or satisfaction.ââ?¬Â This conclusion was supported by two randomized\ncontrolled trials, regarded as high-quality (1++) evidence and the majority of surveys\nand studies involving physiological measurements comparing uncircumcised and circumcised\nmen. Here we explain why the 2 randomized controlled trials merit a 1++ ranking and why 4 reports\nthat Boyle believes merit a higher ranking only meet the criteria set down for low quality\n(2?) evidence according to the SIGN system. We therefore stand by our conclusions. These are\nsupported by a meta-analysis of sexual dysfunctions and by a recent detailed systematic review of\nthe histological correlates of male sexual sensation....
Loading....