Hypnosis versus Diazepam for Embryo Transfer: A Randomized Controlled Study
Levitas et al. (200613.
Levitas , E. ,
Parmet , A. ,
Lunenfeld , E. ,
Bentov , Y. ,
Burstein , E. ,
Friger , M. and
Potashnick , G. 2006. Impact of hypnosis during embryo transfer on the outcome of in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer: A case-control study. Fertility and Sterility, 85: 1404–1408. [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]View all references) showed in a cohort study that hypnosis during embryo transfer (ET) increased pregnancy ratio by 76%. In order to evaluate hypnosis during ET in a general population, the authors performed a randomized prospective controlled study comparing diazepam (usual premedication) administered before ET plus muscle relaxation versus hypnosis plus placebo in 94 patients. Additionally, the authors studied anxiety pre and post ET. Anxiety scores were not different in the two groups before and after ET. No difference in pregnancy and birth ratio was found in the two groups. Hypnosis during ET is as effective as diazepam in terms of pregnancy ratio and anxiolytic effects, but with fewer side effects and should be routinely available.
Available from: Robert Zachariae
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the evidence on the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for improving pregnancy rates and reducing distress for couples in treatment with assisted reproductive technology (ART).
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
PsycINFO, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library between 1978 and April 2014.
Studies were considered eligible if they evaluated the effect of any psychosocial intervention on clinical pregnancy and/or distress in infertile participants, used a quantitative approach and were published in English.
Study characteristics and results were extracted and the methodological quality was assessed. Effect sizes (ES; Hedges g) were pooled using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I(2), and publication bias was evaluated using Egger's method. Possible moderators and mediators were explored with meta-analyses of variances (ANOVAs) and meta-regression.
We identified 39 eligible studies (total N=2746 men and women) assessing the effects of psychological treatment on pregnancy rates and/or adverse psychological outcomes, including depressive symptoms, anxiety, infertility stress and marital function. Statistically significant and robust overall effects of psychosocial intervention were found for both clinical pregnancy (risk ratio=2.01; CI 1.48 to 2.73; p<0.001) and combined psychological outcomes (Hedges g=0.59; CI 0.38 to 0.80; p=0.001). The pooled ES for psychological outcomes were generally larger for women (g: 0.51 to 0.73) than men (0.13 to 0.34), but the difference only reached statistical significance for depressive symptoms (p=0.004). Meta-regression indicated that larger reductions in anxiety were associated with greater improvement in pregnancy rates (Slope 0.19; p=0.004). No clear-cut differences were found between effects of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT; g=0.84), mind-body interventions (0.61) and other intervention types (0.50).
The present meta-analysis suggests that psychosocial interventions for couples in treatment for infertility, in particular CBT, could be efficacious, both in reducing psychological distress and in improving clinical pregnancy rates.
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.