It may, according to a new review published by the Cochrane Collaboration, an international nonprofit that analyzes health care information.
The review, which looked at results of two randomized studies of Chinese herbal medicine involving 158 women, suggested that Chinese herbs may provide better relief of pelvic pain and other symptoms than one of the prescription drugs normally used in the West, Danazol.
Endometriosis occurs when tissue from inside the uterus escapes to other parts of the body. Outside the uterus, this tissue is seen as “foreign’’ by the immune system, which means that the body mounts an inflammatory response that can cause pain and scarring.
In the review, researchers at the University of Southampton in England found that Chinese herbs - which were not specified and which typically vary from patient to patient in Chinese medicine - were better at relieving menstrual pain than Danazol, a testosterone-derived drug, and were also better at shrinking endometrial masses. They did not prove better for other types of endometrial discomfort, such as rectal pain.
Dr. Aaron Styer, a reproductive endocrinologist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center, noted that in the West, the first line of treatment for endometriosis is birth control and other hormonal drugs, which suppress secretion of estrogen by the ovaries. Although the Chinese herbal study is not conclusive, he said, “if a patient has not done well with traditional therapy or doesn’t want to proceed with it, she should investigate these approaches more completely, as long as there’s no potential health risk of taking these herbs.’’
Dr. Hope Riccotti, clinical director of obstetrics and gynecology at the Dimock Community Health Center, cautioned that “herbs are drugs and drug interactions can be dangerous,’’ which makes it important for women to tell their health care providers if they are taking these herbs.
Showing posts with label Obstetrics and Gynecology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obstetrics and Gynecology. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Induced Labor May Prevent Need for Cesarean Section
Inducing labor doesn't necessarily increase the risk of Cesarean section delivery, according to a study that challenges the widely held opinion.
Researchers reviewed available data on elective induction, in which women choose to have labor induced rather than requiring it for medical reasons. Most of the studies included women who were about one week past their due date.
The review results suggest that, compared with waiting, elective induction of labor at or after 41 weeks' gestation lowered Cesarean delivery risk by 22 percent. In addition, women whose labor was electively induced were half as likely to have meconium-stained amniotic fluid, which is a sign of fetal intrauterine stress.
The findings suggest that elective induction of labor may be safer than continuing pregnancy past 41 weeks, according to the researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine and University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Their study appears in the Aug. 18 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.
"It appears there is misunderstanding regarding the association of increased Cesarean deliveries with elective induction of labor, a procedure which has been rising in frequency," review lead author Dr. Aaron Caughey, an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at UCSF, said in a Stanford University news release. "However, our findings need to be tempered with women's and physicians' expectations of choosing to induce labor."
The message for pregnant women is that labor induction can be done without increasing Cesarean risk if doctors give induction sufficient time to work, said co-author Dr. Douglas Owens, director of the Stanford-UCSF Evidence-based Practice Center.
"Women should talk with their physician about how they would handle induction and what their approach to the procedure would be," Owens said in the news release.
Researchers reviewed available data on elective induction, in which women choose to have labor induced rather than requiring it for medical reasons. Most of the studies included women who were about one week past their due date.
The review results suggest that, compared with waiting, elective induction of labor at or after 41 weeks' gestation lowered Cesarean delivery risk by 22 percent. In addition, women whose labor was electively induced were half as likely to have meconium-stained amniotic fluid, which is a sign of fetal intrauterine stress.
The findings suggest that elective induction of labor may be safer than continuing pregnancy past 41 weeks, according to the researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine and University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Their study appears in the Aug. 18 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.
"It appears there is misunderstanding regarding the association of increased Cesarean deliveries with elective induction of labor, a procedure which has been rising in frequency," review lead author Dr. Aaron Caughey, an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at UCSF, said in a Stanford University news release. "However, our findings need to be tempered with women's and physicians' expectations of choosing to induce labor."
The message for pregnant women is that labor induction can be done without increasing Cesarean risk if doctors give induction sufficient time to work, said co-author Dr. Douglas Owens, director of the Stanford-UCSF Evidence-based Practice Center.
"Women should talk with their physician about how they would handle induction and what their approach to the procedure would be," Owens said in the news release.
Induced Labor May Prevent Need for Cesarean Section
Inducing labor doesn't necessarily increase the risk of Cesarean section delivery, according to a study that challenges the widely held opinion.
Researchers reviewed available data on elective induction, in which women choose to have labor induced rather than requiring it for medical reasons. Most of the studies included women who were about one week past their due date.
The review results suggest that, compared with waiting, elective induction of labor at or after 41 weeks' gestation lowered Cesarean delivery risk by 22 percent. In addition, women whose labor was electively induced were half as likely to have meconium-stained amniotic fluid, which is a sign of fetal intrauterine stress.
The findings suggest that elective induction of labor may be safer than continuing pregnancy past 41 weeks, according to the researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine and University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Their study appears in the Aug. 18 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.
"It appears there is misunderstanding regarding the association of increased Cesarean deliveries with elective induction of labor, a procedure which has been rising in frequency," review lead author Dr. Aaron Caughey, an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at UCSF, said in a Stanford University news release. "However, our findings need to be tempered with women's and physicians' expectations of choosing to induce labor."
The message for pregnant women is that labor induction can be done without increasing Cesarean risk if doctors give induction sufficient time to work, said co-author Dr. Douglas Owens, director of the Stanford-UCSF Evidence-based Practice Center.
"Women should talk with their physician about how they would handle induction and what their approach to the procedure would be," Owens said in the news release.
Researchers reviewed available data on elective induction, in which women choose to have labor induced rather than requiring it for medical reasons. Most of the studies included women who were about one week past their due date.
The review results suggest that, compared with waiting, elective induction of labor at or after 41 weeks' gestation lowered Cesarean delivery risk by 22 percent. In addition, women whose labor was electively induced were half as likely to have meconium-stained amniotic fluid, which is a sign of fetal intrauterine stress.
The findings suggest that elective induction of labor may be safer than continuing pregnancy past 41 weeks, according to the researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine and University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Their study appears in the Aug. 18 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.
"It appears there is misunderstanding regarding the association of increased Cesarean deliveries with elective induction of labor, a procedure which has been rising in frequency," review lead author Dr. Aaron Caughey, an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at UCSF, said in a Stanford University news release. "However, our findings need to be tempered with women's and physicians' expectations of choosing to induce labor."
The message for pregnant women is that labor induction can be done without increasing Cesarean risk if doctors give induction sufficient time to work, said co-author Dr. Douglas Owens, director of the Stanford-UCSF Evidence-based Practice Center.
"Women should talk with their physician about how they would handle induction and what their approach to the procedure would be," Owens said in the news release.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Weight gain during menopause tied to brain changes
Healthy women who put on weight between the premenopausal and postmenopausal years risk losing nerve cells in the brain, research suggests.
Gaining weight is a "highly modifiable" risk factor that may be targeted to prevent or slow the progression of potentially harmful age-related changes in the brain, the University of Pittsburgh-based study team suggests in the June issue of Psychosomatic Medicine.
Dr. Isabella Soreca and colleagues analyzed brain imaging data obtained from 48 healthy older women who were tracked over a 20-year period as part of the longitudinal epidemiological Pittsburgh Healthy Women Study.
They report in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine that an increase in body weight during the transition to menopause and beyond was "uniquely associated" with a lower volume of gray matter (the portion of the brain containing nerve cell bodies).
Soreca and colleagues say this finding is "particularly noteworthy" given that these were healthy older women who entered menopause naturally and had no history of cardiovascular disease or psychiatric disease and none were obese in mid-life or later on.
"Women may be particularly motivated to maintain a healthy weight in the postmenopausal years, should it be confirmed that weight gain causes alteration in brain function that is important to quality of life," Soreca and colleagues conclude.
Gaining weight is a "highly modifiable" risk factor that may be targeted to prevent or slow the progression of potentially harmful age-related changes in the brain, the University of Pittsburgh-based study team suggests in the June issue of Psychosomatic Medicine.
Dr. Isabella Soreca and colleagues analyzed brain imaging data obtained from 48 healthy older women who were tracked over a 20-year period as part of the longitudinal epidemiological Pittsburgh Healthy Women Study.
They report in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine that an increase in body weight during the transition to menopause and beyond was "uniquely associated" with a lower volume of gray matter (the portion of the brain containing nerve cell bodies).
Soreca and colleagues say this finding is "particularly noteworthy" given that these were healthy older women who entered menopause naturally and had no history of cardiovascular disease or psychiatric disease and none were obese in mid-life or later on.
"Women may be particularly motivated to maintain a healthy weight in the postmenopausal years, should it be confirmed that weight gain causes alteration in brain function that is important to quality of life," Soreca and colleagues conclude.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Special Journal Issue Focuses on Family Medicine Obstetrics
Family Medicine Obstetrics is the featured topic of the current special issue of the American Journal of Clinical Medicine.
Daniel M. Avery, MD, FACOG, FACS, is the author of several articles in the issue including The History of Board Certification of Family Medicine Obstetricians. Dr. Avery, Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University Of Alabama School Of Medicine, is Chair of the recently formed American Board of Family Medicine Obstetrics (ABFMO).
“Attempts to recognize and certify Family Medicine Obstetricians have been a long term task, dating back to the 1980s,” said Dr. Avery. “ABFMO will provide certification in support of family physicians that have completed advanced training in maternity care, including operative obstetrics.”
Other Special Issue Highlights Include:
• Four Part Series on Maternal Health
• Founder of Obstetrics Fellowships in the United States
• Postpartum Depression
• Prenatal Patients Not Delivered
• Obstetric Emergencies
• The Need for Rural Family Physicians Who Can Perform Cesareans
• Medical Ethics Without the Rhetoric
• Minilaparotomy Technique for Ectopic Pregnancy
To view the special Family Medicine Obstetrics issue online go to http://www.aapsus.org/ajcm/2009/spring/. The American Journal of Clinical Medicine is the official, peer-reviewed journal of the American Association of Physician Specialists, Inc. (AAPS). The Journal is dedicated to improving the practice of clinical medicine by providing up-to-date information for today’s practitioners.
AAPS is a 501 (c)(6) not-for-profit organization providing a providing a clinically recognized mechanism for specialty certification for physicians who had obtained advanced training in various medical specialties. The American Board of Physician Specialties (ABPS) is the certifying arm of the AAPS, certifying and recertifying thousands of allopathic (M.D.) and osteopathic (D.O.) physicians from all 50 states and Canada in 16 medical specialties.
Daniel M. Avery, MD, FACOG, FACS, is the author of several articles in the issue including The History of Board Certification of Family Medicine Obstetricians. Dr. Avery, Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University Of Alabama School Of Medicine, is Chair of the recently formed American Board of Family Medicine Obstetrics (ABFMO).
“Attempts to recognize and certify Family Medicine Obstetricians have been a long term task, dating back to the 1980s,” said Dr. Avery. “ABFMO will provide certification in support of family physicians that have completed advanced training in maternity care, including operative obstetrics.”
Other Special Issue Highlights Include:
• Four Part Series on Maternal Health
• Founder of Obstetrics Fellowships in the United States
• Postpartum Depression
• Prenatal Patients Not Delivered
• Obstetric Emergencies
• The Need for Rural Family Physicians Who Can Perform Cesareans
• Medical Ethics Without the Rhetoric
• Minilaparotomy Technique for Ectopic Pregnancy
To view the special Family Medicine Obstetrics issue online go to http://www.aapsus.org/ajcm/2009/spring/. The American Journal of Clinical Medicine is the official, peer-reviewed journal of the American Association of Physician Specialists, Inc. (AAPS). The Journal is dedicated to improving the practice of clinical medicine by providing up-to-date information for today’s practitioners.
AAPS is a 501 (c)(6) not-for-profit organization providing a providing a clinically recognized mechanism for specialty certification for physicians who had obtained advanced training in various medical specialties. The American Board of Physician Specialties (ABPS) is the certifying arm of the AAPS, certifying and recertifying thousands of allopathic (M.D.) and osteopathic (D.O.) physicians from all 50 states and Canada in 16 medical specialties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)