Psychological Interventions for Infertile Couples: Does Gender Matter?

Purpose: Gender-specific differences exist between male and female infertility patients' mental health, the meaning of infertility in their lives, and the coping strategies used. This systematic review examines whether gender-specific aspects are addressed in psychological intervention studies for infertility and whether infertile women and men benefit equally from such interventions. Methods: Databases were searched to identify relevant articles published between 1978 and 2007 (384 articles). The review included both controlled and uncontrolled psychological intervention studies examining results for infertile women and men separately. Outcome measures (depressive symptoms, anxiety, and mental distress) and gender-specific baseline characteristics (mental distress at pre-assessment, cause of infertility, and medical treatment) were collected. A total of twelve studies were finally included. Results: In 10 of 12 studies, women exhibited higher levels of mental distress than men. Gender-specific aspects were not addressed in the psychological interventions. Examining the efficacy of psychological interventions revealed that women exhibited stronger positive mental health effects in 2 of the 12 studies. Conclusion: Psychological distress before psychological treatment seems more pronounced in women than in men. Therefore psychological interventions for infertile couples should take gender-specific aspects into account. More research is needed to address the gender-specific aspects regarding psychological interventions for infertility.

Impact of advanced age on outcomes following damage control interventions for trauma

Damage control (DC) strategy has significantly contributed to mortality reduction in massively bleeding and critically injured trauma victims. However, there is a lack of literature validating the effectiveness of this approach in the elderly population.

Coronary collaterals and risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis

The benefit of the coronary collateral circulation (natural bypass network) on survival is well established. However, data derived from smaller studies indicates that coronary collaterals may increase the risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was to explore the impact of the collateral circulation on the risk for restenosis.