The impact of fibroid treatments on quality of life and mental health: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fibroids significantly impact the quality of life (QOL) and mental health of affected women. However, there are limited comparative data on QOL measures after medical, surgical, and radiologic interventions in women with fibroids. This study aimed to assess the current literature evaluating the impact of fibroids on QOL measures using several validated questionnaires for radiologic, medical, or surgical interventions or a combination of interventions before and after treatment. PubMed, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 1990 to October 2023 to evaluate the available evidence, and the risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The review criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies that included premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine fibroids, confirmed by imaging, who underwent an intervention to target fibroid disease. Only reports using validated questionnaires with a numerical baseline (pretreatment) and posttreatment scores were included. The exclusion criteria included perimenopausal or postmenopausal patients, conditions in addition to uterine fibroids that share similar symptoms, or studies that did not focus on QOL assessment. Abstracts were screened, and full texts were reviewed to determine whether studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 67 studies were included after final review: 18 RCTs and 49 observational studies. All interventions were associated with a significant improvement in uterine fibroid-specific QOL measures, mental health metrics, and a reduction in symptom severity scores after treatment. These data reveal a substantial impact of uterine fibroids on the QOL and mental health of women with fibroids and indicate the metrics that can be used to compare the effectiveness of fibroid treatment options.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".