Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study

Study flow diagram
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Study flow diagram

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Local anaesthetic versus placebo or no treatment, outcome: 1.1 Pain score.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Local anaesthetic versus placebo or no treatment, outcome: 1.1 Pain score.

Funnel plot of comparison local anaesthetic versus placebo or no treatment, outcome: pain score
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Funnel plot of comparison local anaesthetic versus placebo or no treatment, outcome: pain score

Comparison 1 Local anaesthetic versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Pain score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Local anaesthetic versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Pain score.

Comparison 1 Local anaesthetic versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Failure to complete procedure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Local anaesthetic versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Failure to complete procedure.

Comparison 1 Local anaesthetic versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 3 Adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Local anaesthetic versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 3 Adverse events.

Comparison 2 Oral NSAID versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Pain score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Oral NSAID versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Pain score.

Comparison 2 Oral NSAID versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Oral NSAID versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Adverse events.

Comparison 3 Opioid versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Pain score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Opioid versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Pain score.

Comparison 3 Opioid versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Failure to complete procedure (due to pain).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Opioid versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Failure to complete procedure (due to pain).

Comparison 3 Opioid versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 3 Adverse effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Opioid versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 3 Adverse effects.

Comparison 4 Local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia, Outcome 1 Pain score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia, Outcome 1 Pain score.

Comparison 4 Local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia, Outcome 2 Failure to complete procedure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia, Outcome 2 Failure to complete procedure.

Comparison 5 Local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical, paracervical and topical anaesthesia, Outcome 1 Pain score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical, paracervical and topical anaesthesia, Outcome 1 Pain score.

Comparison 6 Antispasmodic + NSAID versus local paracervical anaesthesia, Outcome 1 Pain score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Antispasmodic + NSAID versus local paracervical anaesthesia, Outcome 1 Pain score.

Comparison 7 Opioid versus NSAID, Outcome 1 Pain score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Opioid versus NSAID, Outcome 1 Pain score.

Comparison 7 Opioid versus NSAID, Outcome 2 Adverse effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Opioid versus NSAID, Outcome 2 Adverse effects.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Local anaesthetic compared to placebo or no treatment for outpatient hysteroscopy

Local anaesthetic compared to placebo or no treatment for outpatient hysteroscopy

Population: women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy
Setting: outpatient hysteroscopy clinic
Intervention: local anaesthetic
Comparison: placebo or no treatment

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with placebo or no treatment

Risk with local anaesthetic

Pain score during procedure

The mean pain score ranged from 0.86 to 4.3 on a 0‐10 cm VAS

SMD 0.29 SD lower
(0.39 lower to 0.19 lower)

1496
(10 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

This suggests a marginally lower pain score in the intervention group, equating to up to 7 mm on a 0‐10 cm point VAS. This is unlikely to be clinically significant

Pain score within 30 min of procedure

The mean pain score ranged from 1.8 to 6.3 on a 0‐10 cm VAS

SMD 0.5 SD lower
(0.67 lower to 0.33 lower)

545
(5 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1

This suggests a marginally lower pain score in the intervention group, equating to up to 13 mm on a 0‐10 cm point VAS. This is unlikely to be clinically significant

Pain score more than 30 min after procedure

The mean pain score ranged from 0.62 to 1.8 on a 0‐10 cm VAS

SMD 0.11 SD lower
(0.3 lower to 0.07 higher)

450
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low3,4

There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups.

Vasovagal reaction

63 per 1000

45 per 1000
(28 to 71)

OR 0.70
(0.43 to 1.13)

1309
(8 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,4

There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups

Non‐pelvic pain

100 per 1000

164 per 1000
(56 to 392)

OR 1.76
(0.53 to 5.80)

99
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,3

There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a difference between the groups

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the mean risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; SMD: standardised mean difference; SD: standard deviation; OR: odds ratio; VAS: visual analogue scale

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Downgraded two levels for serious risk of bias: none of the studies adequately described methods of allocation concealment and methods of blinding were unclear or inadequate in many studies.
2High statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 80%), but not downgraded as direction of effect was consistent.
3Downgraded one level for serious risk of bias: none of the studies adequately described methods of allocation concealment.
4Downgraded one level due to serious imprecision ‐ wide confidence interval or low event rate, or both.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Local anaesthetic compared to placebo or no treatment for outpatient hysteroscopy
Summary of findings 2. Oral NSAID compared to placebo or no treatment for outpatient hysteroscopy

Oral NSAID compared to placebo or no treatment for outpatient hysteroscopy

Population: women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy
Setting: outpatient hysteroscopy clinic
Intervention: oral nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug (NSAID)
Comparison: placebo or no treatment

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with placebo or no treatment

Risk with oral NSAID

Pain score during procedure

The mean pain score ranged from 2.1 to 5.92 on a 0‐10 cm VAS

SMD 0.18 lower

(0.35 lower to 0.00)

521
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2,3

There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups

Pain score within 30 min of procedure

The mean pain score

ranged from 0.65 to 2.02 on a 0‐10 cm VAS

SMD 0.25 SD lower
(0.46 lower to 0.04 lower)

340 participants
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

The evidence suggests a benefit in the NSAID group, equivalent to up to 2 mm on a 0‐10 cm VAS. This is unlikely to be clinically significant

Pain score more than 30 min after procedure

The mean pain score

ranged from 1.2 to 1.55 on a 0‐10 cm VAS

SMD 0.27 lower
(0.49 lower to 0.05 lower)

321
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2,3

The evidence suggests a benefit in the NSAID group, equivalent to up to 7mm on a 0‐10 cm VAS. This is unlikely to be clinically significant

Vasovagal reaction

56 per 1,000

43 per 1,000
(12 to 149)

OR 0.76
(0.20 to 2.94)

181 participants
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
very low1,4

Only 9 events

There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a difference between the groups

Non pelvic pain

Not calculable: no events in one group

OR 2.93
(0.12 to 72.99)

181 participants
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
very low1,4

Only 1 event

There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a difference between the groups

Allergic reaction

Not calculable: no events in one group

OR 2.93
(0.12 to 72.99)

181 participants
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
very low1,4

Only 1 event

There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a difference between the groups

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the mean risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; SMD: standardised mean difference; SD: standard deviation; NSAID: nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs; OR: odds ratio; VAS: visual analogue scale

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Downgraded one level due to serious risk of bias: none of the studies adequately described methods of allocation concealment.
2Downgraded one level due to serious imprecision: effect estimate touches or crosses 0.
3High heterogeneity (I2 = 78% to 81%): not downgraded for inconsistency as direction of effect is consistent.
4Downgraded two levels due to very serious imprecision: very few events.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Oral NSAID compared to placebo or no treatment for outpatient hysteroscopy
Summary of findings 3. Opioid compared to placebo or no treatment for outpatient hysteroscopy

Opioid compared to placebo or no treatment for outpatient hysteroscopy

Population: women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy
Setting: outpatient hysteroscopy clinic
Intervention: oral or sublingual opioid
Comparison: placebo or no treatment

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with placebo or no treatment

Risk with opioid

Pain score during procedure:

oral opioid

The mean pain score was 5.92 mm on a 0‐10 cm VAS

Oral opioid: SMD was 0.76 lower (95% CI 1.10 lower to 0.42 lower)

140

(1 study)

low1,2

Data from the two studies were unsuitable for pooling due to extreme heterogeneity (I2 = 92%) with conflicting directions of effect.

There is a suggestion of benefit from oral opioid, equating to a difference of up to 22 mm on a 0‐10 cm VAS. This may possibly be clinically significant

Pain score during procedure:

sublingual opioid

The mean pain score was from 3.2 mm on a 0‐10 cm VAS

Sublingual opioid: SMD was 0.08 higher (95% CI 0.22 lower to 0.39 higher)

164

(1 study)

low1,2

Pain score within 30 min of procedure

oral opioid

The mean pain score was 3.27 mm on a 0‐10 cm VAS

SMD ‐0.57 lower
(‐0.91 to ‐0.23 lower)

140
(1 study)

low1,2

There is a suggestion of benefit from oral opioid, equating to a difference of up to 17 mm on a 0‐10 cm VAS. This may possibly be clinically significant

Pain score more than 30 min after procedure

oral opioid

The mean pain score was 0.77 on a 0‐10 cm VAS

SMD 0.17 lower
( 0.51 lower to 0.16 higher)

140
(1 study)

very low1,2,3

Nausea and vomiting

sublingual opioid

Not calculable as all 31 events were in the opioid group and none in the placebo group

OR 107.55

(6.44 to 1796.46)

164
(1 study)

low1

There were 4 events in the intervention group of the oral opioid study, but events in the placebo group were not reported

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the mean risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; SMD: standardised mean difference; SD: standard deviation; OR: odds ratio; VAS: visual analogue scale

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Downgraded one level for serious risk of bias: method of allocation concealment or blinding, or both, not described.
2Downgraded one level for inconsistency: findings for different types of morphine differ in direction of effect.
3Downgraded one level due to serious imprecision ‐ wide confidence interval.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Opioid compared to placebo or no treatment for outpatient hysteroscopy
Summary of findings 4. Intracervical versus combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia

Intracervical versus combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia

Population: women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy
Setting: outpatient hysteroscopy clinic
Intervention: localintracervical anaesthesia
Comparison: combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia

Risk with local intracervical anaesthesia

Pain score during procedure

The mean pain score was 2.1

(SD 0.2) on a 0‐10 cm VAS

SMD 4.27 SD higher (3.49 higher to 5.06 higher)

84 participants
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2

This suggests a significant benefit from combined anaesthesia, equating to up to 12 mm on a 0‐10 cm point VAS. This is unlikely to be be clinically significant

Pain score within 30 minutes of the procedure

The mean pain score was 1.5 (SD 0.3) on a 0‐10 cm VAS

(SMD 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 higher to 2.05 higher)

84 participants

(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2

This suggests a significant benefit from combined anaesthesia, equating to up to 5 mm on a 0‐10 cm point VAS. This is unlikely to be clinically significant

Pain score more than 30 minutes of the procedure

The mean pain score was 1 (SD 0.2) on a 0‐10 cm VAS

(SMD 3.47, 95% CI 2.78 higher to 4.15 higher)

84 participants

(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2

This suggests a significant benefit from combined anaesthesia, equating to up to 8 mm on a 0‐10 cm point VAS. This is unlikely to be clinically significant

Adverse effects

No data available

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the mean risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; SMD: standardised mean difference; SD: standard deviation; VAS: visual analogue scale

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Downgraded two levels for very serious risk of bias: allocation concealment not described, participants not blinded.
2Downgraded two levels for very serious imprecision: very small sample size. In practice, full downgrading not possible as already low quality.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 4. Intracervical versus combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia
Summary of findings 5. Antispasmodic plus NSAID versus paracervical anaesthesia

Antispasmodic plus NSAID versus paracervical anaesthesia

Population: women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy
Setting: outpatient hysteroscopy clinic
Intervention: antispasmodic plus nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAID)
Comparison: local paracervical anaesthesia

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Paracervical anaesthesia

Antispasmodic plus NSAID

Pain score during procedure

The mean pain score was 5.93 (SD ‐1.26) on a 0‐10 cm VAS

SMD 1.40 SD lower (1.90 lower to 0.91 lower)

80
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2

This suggests a beneficial effect in the drotaverine hydrochloride and mefenamic acid group, equating to up to 23 mm on a 0‐10 cm point VAS. This may possibly be clinically significant

Pain score within 30 minutes of the procedure

This outcome was not reported

Pain score more than 30 minutes after the procedure

The mean pain score was 2.53 (SD ‐0.81) on a 0‐10 cm VAS

SMD 0.87 SD lower
(1.33 lower to 0.41 lower)

80
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2

This suggests a beneficial effect in the drotaverine hydrochloride and mefenamic acid group, equating toup to11mm on a 0‐10 cm point VAS. This is unlikely to be clinically significant.

Adverse effects

This outcome was not reported

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the mean risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; SMD: standardised mean difference; SD: standard deviation; VAS: visual analogue scale

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Downgraded two levels for very serious risk of bias: methods of allocation concealment not described, not blinded.
2Downgraded one level for serious imprecision: small sample size.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 5. Antispasmodic plus NSAID versus paracervical anaesthesia
Table 1. Dosing of local anaesthetics

Study

Route

Dose

Al‐Sunaidi 2007

Intracervical versus intra and paracervical

Local intracervical anaesthesia compared to combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia. 0.5% bupivacaine hydrochloride into anterior wall of cervix compared to 0.5% bupivacaine hydrochloride into anterior wall of cervix plus bupivacaine into lateral vaginal fornix at 3 and 9 o’clock at 10 mm depth

Arnau 2013

Endocervical topical cream

3 mL of EMLA cream 5% or 3 mL ultrasound gel applied in the endocervical canal 10 min before surgery with 5 mL needleless syringe via speculum. A subsequent application of either gel was made with a swab at ectocervix level during vaginoscopic approach

Broadbent 1992

Intracervical

Intracervical injection of 10 mL of lignocaine 1% with 1:200 000 adrenaline or normal saline was injected into the cervix at 1, 5, 7, and 11 o’clock

Cicinelli 1997

Transcervical

2 mL of 2% mepivacaine or 2 mL of 0.9% saline injected trans cervically (inserted up the cervical canal to the internal os)

Cicinelli 1998

Paracervical

10 mL of 1.5% mepivacaine or saline injected into junction of cervix and vagina (4 and 8 o'clock positions)

Clark 1996

Topical spray

10 mL of 2% lignocaine gel, placebo gel or no gel administered into cervical canal. Some women received intracervical lignocaine block if determined to need cervical dilatation

Costello 1998

Intrauterine

5 mL of 2% lignocaine or 5 mL or 0.9% saline injected into cervical canal and uterine cavity via hysteroscope

Esteve 2002

Intracervical

Intracervical application at 1, 5, 7 and 11 o'clock positions of 4 x 2 mL ampoules of 2% lidocaine hydrochloride ampoules or saline

Finikiotis 1992

Paracervical versus uterosacral

20 mL of 1% lignocaine paracervical block or 2 mL of 2%  lignocaine uterosacral block

Giorda 2000

Paracervical

20 mL of 1% mepivacaine injected paracervically at 3, 5, 7 and 9 o'clock position of the junction of cervix and vagina at least 5 min before the procedure 

Kabli 2008

Intracervical versus intracervical and intrauterine

2 mL of 1% lidocaine into anterior wall. Distension medium of either saline only or 18 mL of lidocaine in 250 mL of saline

Kokanali 2013

Intracervical

Intracervical local anaesthesia (10 mL of 1% prilocaine) was applied at the 4 and
8 o’clock position on the posterior lip of the cervix in divided doses

Lau 1999

Paracervical

Paracervical block at 3, 5, 7 and 9 o'clock positions of 10 mL of 2% lignocaine or saline, 5 min prior to procedure

Lau 2000

Transcervical

Transcervical intrauterine instillation of 5 mL of 2% lignocaine or normal saline into the uterine cavity 5 min before procedure

Lukes 2015

Para/intracervical versus intracervical only anaesthetic block

The para/intracervical group received a total of 37 cc of anaesthesia injected at 6 different sites. 2‐3 min prior to the injection, topical 1% lidocaine was applied to the cervix in this group. The intracervical group received a total of 22 cc of anaesthetic given at 3 different injection sites

Makris 2001

Intracervical

1 mL to 3 mL (30 to 90 mg) of mepivacaine 3% or saline administered intracervically 3 min prior to procedure

Mercorio 2002

Intracervical versus NSAID

5 mL mepivacaine 2% intracervically up to the level of the internal os or one tablet of dexketoprofen given 1 h before the procedure

Mohammadi 2015

Transcervical intrauterine lidocaine instillation versus rectal diclofenac

5 mL of 2% lidocaine or the same volume of saline was instilled through the endocervix into the uterine cavity with an 18‐gauge angiocatheter 3 min prior to the procedure

Senturk 2016

Intracervical

The second group was administered with a 1000 mL distention medium containing 18 mL lidocaine per 250 mL (Jetokain ampoule 20 mg 2% Adeka, Samsun, Turkey)

Soriano 2000

Topical spray

30 mg (3 metered doses) of lignocaine or placebo sprayed onto surface of cervix and cervical canal through 360° 5 min prior to procedure

Stigliano 1997

Topical cream versus topical spray

1 cm3 of 5% prilocaine cream onto esocervix and 2 cm3 inserted 3 cm into cervical canal 10 min before procedure or 20 mg of lidocaine spray directed onto esocervix and 20 mg 3 cm into cervical canal immediately before procedure or no intervention

Van den Bosch 2011

Intrauterine

Unspecified volume of Instillagel (contains 2% lidocaine) or Endosgel (does not contain local anaesthetic) warmed to 37°C and instilled via a 2 mm neonatal suction catheter as part of sonography procedure 30 min prior to hysteroscopy

Vercellini 1994

Paracervical

Paracervical block at 3, 5, 7 and 9 o'clock positions of 10 mL 1% mepivacaine 5 min before procedure or no intervention given

Wong 2000

Topical gel

4 mL of 2% lignocaine or placebo gel applied onto cervix before procedure

Zupi 1995

Intrauterine

5 mL of 2% mepivacaine or 5 mL of saline intrauterine via 3 mm catheter

NSAID: nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Dosing of local anaesthetics
Comparison 1. Local anaesthetic versus placebo or no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain score Show forest plot

12

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Pain score during procedure

10

1496

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.29 [‐0.39, ‐0.19]

1.2 Pain score within 30 min of procedure

5

545

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.50 [‐0.67, ‐0.33]

1.3 Pain score more than 30 min after procedure

4

450

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.30, 0.07]

2 Failure to complete procedure Show forest plot

7

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Cervical stenosis

6

805

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.23 [0.62, 2.43]

2.2 Pain

2

330

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.12, 0.69]

3 Adverse events Show forest plot

8

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Vasovagal reaction

8

1309

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.43, 1.13]

3.2 Non‐pelvic pain

1

99

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.76 [0.53, 5.80]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Local anaesthetic versus placebo or no treatment
Comparison 2. Oral NSAID versus placebo or no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain score Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Pain score during procedure

3

521

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.18 [‐0.35, ‐0.00]

1.2 Pain score within 30 min of procedure

2

340

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐0.46, ‐0.04]

1.3 Pain score more than 30 min after procedure

2

321

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.27 [‐0.49, ‐0.05]

2 Adverse events Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Vasovagal reaction

1

181

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.20, 2.94]

2.2 Non pelvic pain

1

181

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.93 [0.12, 72.99]

2.3 Allergic reactions

1

181

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.93 [0.12, 72.99]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Oral NSAID versus placebo or no treatment
Comparison 3. Opioid versus placebo or no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain score Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Pain score during procedure

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Pain score within 30 min of procedure

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Pain score more than 30 min after procedure

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Failure to complete procedure (due to pain) Show forest plot

1

140

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.21]

3 Adverse effects Show forest plot

1

164

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

107.55 [6.44, 1796.46]

3.1 Nausea and vomiting

1

164

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

107.55 [6.44, 1796.46]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Opioid versus placebo or no treatment
Comparison 4. Local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain score Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Pain score during procedure

1

84

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.27 [3.49, 5.06]

1.2 Pain score within 30 min of procedure

1

84

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.55 [1.06, 2.05]

1.3 Pain score more than 30 min after procedure

1

84

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.47 [2.78, 4.15]

2 Failure to complete procedure Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia
Comparison 5. Local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical, paracervical and topical anaesthesia

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain score Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Pain score during procedure

1

37

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.54 [‐1.20, 0.12]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical, paracervical and topical anaesthesia
Comparison 6. Antispasmodic + NSAID versus local paracervical anaesthesia

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain score Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Pain score during procedure

1

80

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.40 [‐1.90, ‐0.91]

1.2 Pain score more than 30 min after procedure

1

80

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.87 [‐1.33, ‐0.41]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Antispasmodic + NSAID versus local paracervical anaesthesia
Comparison 7. Opioid versus NSAID

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain score Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Pain score during procedure

1

140

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐0.48, 0.18]

1.2 Pain score within 30 min of procedure

1

140

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐0.58, 0.08]

1.3 Pain score more than 30 min after procedure

1

140

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.17 [‐0.51, 0.16]

2 Adverse effects Show forest plot

1

140

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

9.54 [0.50, 180.64]

2.1 Nausea and vomiting

1

140

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

9.54 [0.50, 180.64]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. Opioid versus NSAID