In recent years, LASER has been introduced as a minimally invasive treatment for a broad range of vaginal and vulvar symptoms and diseases. However, the efficacy and safety of vaginal and vulvar LASER has continuously been questioned. The aim of this study is to create an overview of the current literature and discuss the controversies within the use of LASER for genitourinary syndrome of menopause, vulvovaginal atrophy, urinary incontinence and lichen sclerosus. A search string was built in PubMed.The search was commenced on August 25, 2021 and closed on October 27, 2021. Two authors screened the studies in Covidence for inclusion according to the eligibility criteria in the protocol. The data were extracted from the studies and are reported inThe authors set up an internal protocol to use as a guideline for the review, listing the criteria and outcomes for this review. The eligibility criteria for this state-of-the-art review adhered to the principals of PICO-participants, interventions, comparison and outcome. Studies that investigated the effect of any vaginal and vulvar LASER on women with symptoms of GSM, VVA, UI or LS were eligible for inclusion. No outcome restrictions were applied.Only original studies were included; unpublished work, editorials, conference abstracts, reviews and meta-analysis were excluded.Likewise, in vivo studies on animals, histologic cohort studies, and studies of the effect of radiofrequency treatment were excluded.indications as a treatment should be kept on a research level until further high-quality evidence is available.

Introduction Polypharmacy is a common concern, especially in the older population. In some countries more that 50% of all individuals over 60 receive five or more drugs, most often due to multimorbidity and increased longevity. However, polypharmacy is associated with multiple adverse events, and more medication may not always be the answer. The terms “appropriate” and “inappropriate” are often used to distinguish between “much” and “too much” medications in relation to polypharmacy in research and practice, but no explicit definition exists to describe what these terms encompass. The aim of this review is to unfold the different understandings of and perspectives on (in)appropriate polypharmacy and suggest a framework for further research and practice. Method A scoping review was conducted using the framework of Arksey and O’Malley and Levac et al. Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane database, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for references in English, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish using the search string “Polypharmacy” AND “Appropriate” OR “Inappropriate”. Data was extracted on author information, aims and objectives, methodology, study population and setting, country of origin, main findings and implications, and all text including the words “appropriate,” “inappropriate,” and “polypharmacy.” Qualitative meaning condensation analysis was used and data charted using descriptive and thematic analysis. Results Of 3982 references, a total of 92 references were included in the review. Most references were from 2016-2021, from fields related to medicine or pharmacy, and occurred within primary and secondary healthcare settings. Based on the qualitative analysis, a framework were assembled consisting of Context, three domains (Standardization, Practices and Values & Concerns) and Patient Perspective. Conclusion Inappropriate polypharmacy is a concept loaded by its heterogeneity and the usefulness of a single definition is doubtful. Instead, the framework suggested in this article representing different dimensions of inappropriate polypharmacy may serve as an initial strategy for focusing research and practice on polypharmacy in old age.