Introduction: There is no clear evidence in the literature that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections improve female sexual dysfunction (FSD) and female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Objectives: A systematic review was performed to study the efficacy and safety of PRP injections in women with the above pathologies, as well as to explore the optimal dosing, frequency and area of injections, and duration of treatment. Methods: A systematic search on PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library database was performed, as well as sources of grey literature from the date of database or source creation to January 2023. After title/abstract and full-text screening, clinical studies on humans evaluating the efficacy of PRP in gynecological disorders using standardized tools were included. Risk of bias was undertaken with RoB-2 for randomized-controlled trials (RCT) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. Results: Four prospective and one retrospective study explored FSD, while six prospective and one RCT evaluated female SUI. A total of 327 women with a mean age of 51 ± 12 years were included. For FSD, PRP significantly improved the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) and the Female Sexual Distress score (FSDS). For SUI, PRP led to a significant improvement in the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire—Short Form (ICIQ-SF) and the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6). The identified RCT reported a significantly higher mean score of ICIQ-SF (p < 0.05) and UDI-6 (p < 0.01) in the midurethral sling group compared to the PRP injections group. Regarding the risk of bias, the RCT was characterized by high risk, whereas the observational studies were of moderate risk. The protocol for PRP injections for FSD is the injection of 2 mL of PRP into the distal anterior vaginal wall once a month for 3 months. For female SUI, 5–6 mL of PRP should be injected into the periurethral area once a month for 3 months. Conclusions: Despite the promising initial results of PRP injections, the level of current evidence is low due to methodological issues in the available studies. It becomes clear that there is an emerging need for high-quality research examining PRP injections for the treatment of FSD and female SUI.

A low FODMAP diet (LFD) has been hypothesized to relieve symptoms of functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGD) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The aim of the study was to systematically review the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of the LFD in patients with IBD and FGD. Four databases were searched, but a meta-analysis was not performed due to methodological and outcomes heterogeneity. Four RCTs fulfilled the criteria, with three having some concerns in their risk of bias assessment. All interventions compared the LFDs against a “typical” or sham diet, spanning in duration from 21 days to 6 weeks. Quality of life was improved in two RCTs, while revealing inconsistent findings in the third trial, based on different assessment tools. The fecal assays revealed non-significant findings for most variables (fecal weight, pH, water content, gene count, and gut transit time) and inconsistent findings concerning stool frequency and short-chain fatty acids concentration. Levels of fecal calprotectin, CRP, or T-cell phenotype did not differ between intervention and comparator arms. Two RCTs reported a reduction in abdominal pain, while results concerning pain duration and bloating were inconsistent. In one trial, energy intake was considerably reduced among LFD participants. Regarding gut microbiota, no differences were noted. A considerable degree of methodological and outcome heterogeneity was observed, paired with results inconsistency. The available data are not sufficient to justify the claim that an LFD induces relief of FGD symptoms, although it may pave the way to a placebo response.

To clarify the effect of programmed exercise (PE), performed for at least six weeks, on perceived stress (PS) in middle aged and old women. A structured search was carried out in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scielo, Web of Science and Scopus, from database inception through January 10, 2018, without language restriction. The US, UK, and Australian clinical trials databases were also searched. The search included a combination of the terms "programmed exercise", "perceived stress", "menopausal women" and "randomized controlled trial" (RCTs). PE was classified according to duration as "mid-term exercise intervention" (MTEI; mean duration 6 months), and "long-term exercise intervention" (LTEI; mean duration 12 months). Mean ± standard deviations of changes in PS scores, as assessed with different questionnaires, were calculated as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and used as effect size for meta-analysis. SMDs of PS after intervention were pooled using a random-effects model. Study quality and bias risk were assessed with the Cochrane tool. Five RCTs that studied midlife and older women (mean age 47.0 ± 1.7 years minimum to 71.8 ± 5.6 maximum) were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant effect of PE on PS score (SMD: -0.16; 95% CI: -0.43 to 0.11). In subgroup analyses, there was no significant effect of PE on PS with mid-term interventions (SMD: - 0.17; 95% CI: -0.59 to 0.25) nor with long-term interventions (SMD: -0.02; 95% CI: -0.42 to 0.38) as compared with controls. PE of low to moderate intensity does not improve PS in midlife and older women.