Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Glob. Women’s Health

Sec. Aging in Women

Volume 6 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2025.1601341

Evaluating Treatment Options for Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Effectiveness, Recovery, and Long-Term Outcomes (MARIE WP1) 1

Provisionally accepted
Elena  BedggoodElena Bedggood1Sun  JieSun Jie2Snehal  GhoshSnehal Ghosh1Vindya  PathirajaVindya Pathiraja3Tharanga  MudaligeTharanga Mudalige3Nirmala  RathnayakeNirmala Rathnayake3Heitor  CavaliniHeitor Cavalini4,5Om  KurmiOm Kurmi6George  Uchenna ElejeGeorge Uchenna Eleje7Peter  PhiriPeter Phiri5Paula  BriggsPaula Briggs8Jian Qing  SHIJian Qing SHI2Gayathri  DelanerolleGayathri Delanerolle1,5*Sohier  ElneilSohier Elneil9
  • 1University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, United Kingdom
  • 2Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China
  • 3University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka
  • 4Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom
  • 5Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom
  • 6Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom
  • 7Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria
  • 8Liverpool Womens Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
  • 9University College London, London, England, United Kingdom

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Uterine fibroids can significantly impair the quality of life of women.While most fibroids remain asymptomatic, 25% of women diagnosed with uterine fibroids require medical intervention.A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was developed and published in PROSPERO (CRD42022346251) to explore surgical treatment outcomes linked to uterine fibroids. Data was gathered using PubMed, Web of Science and ScienceDirect. The pooled data was analysed using the meta-package (version 8.0-1 and version 4.6-0) in R software (version 4.4.2).Five studies met the eligibility criteria, and were further analysed to report quality of life, symptom severity and complications linked to surgery. Three studies (n=520) assessed HRQoL via UFS-QoL pre-and post-uterine artery embolisation and myomectomy. The pooled mean difference was -6.99 (95% CI: [-16.49, 2.51]; I²=71.9%; P=0.03), indicating no significant difference in quality of life impact between procedures. However, the pooled mean difference for UFS-QoL symptom severity was 4.85 (95% CI: [0.50, 9.21]; I²=0.0%; P=0.52), suggesting myomectomy significantly reduces symptom severity compared to uterine artery embolisation.Most studies did not report race and ethnicity, and the study sample was not representative of the global female populous.Uterine artery embolisation and myomectomy result in comparable improvements in health-related quality of life although myomectomy appears to offer a greater reduction in symptom severity compared to uterine artery embolisation. These findings can assist clinicians and patients make improved shared decisions when selecting the most appropriate treatment for uterine fibroids. Improved research study designs and representation in sample need to be considered when conducting future research.

Keywords: Treatment options, Uterine fibroids, Systematic review, Meta-analysis, effectiveness

Received: 27 Mar 2025; Accepted: 14 Jul 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Bedggood, Jie, Ghosh, Pathiraja, Mudalige, Rathnayake, Cavalini, Kurmi, Eleje, Phiri, Briggs, SHI, Delanerolle and Elneil. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Gayathri Delanerolle, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.