Purpose. To explore risk factors of vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) among women of reproductive age in Xi'an district and then to offer reference for clinical prevention and treatment of VVC. Methods. Patients from the outpatient department of gynecology and obstetrics in the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from June 2016 to May 2017 were recruited strictly according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Participants diagnosed as simple VVC were assigned to the case group, while women who underwent routine gynecological examination and had normal vaginal microflora were assigned to the control group. Then we conducted a questionnaire survey of the two groups and used the logistic regression model to explore the related risk factors of VVC. Results. In the present study, ninety-seven cases were sample VVC patients and eighty-seven cases were healthy women. This cross-sectional study showed that occasionally or never drinking sweet drinks (odds ratio [OR] =0.161, 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.056-0.462, P=0.001), occasionally or never eating sweet foods (OR=0.158, 95%CI=0.054-0.460, P=0.001), and the use of condom (OR=0.265, 95%CI=0.243-0.526, P=0.001) were regarded as protective factors for VVC. In addition, sedentary life style (OR=7.876, 95%CI=1.818-34.109, P=0.006), frequently wearing tights (OR=6.613, 95%CI=1.369-27.751, P=0.018), frequent intravaginal douching (OR=3.493, 95%CI=1.379-8.847, P=0.008), having the first sexual encounter when under 20 years old (OR=2.364, 95%CI=1.181-7.758, P=0.006), the number of sexual partners being over two (OR=3.222, 95%CI=1.042-9.960, P=0.042), history of curettage (OR=3.471, 95%CI=1.317-9.148, P=0.012), history of vaginitis (OR=8.999, 95%CI=2.816-28.760, P<0.001), and not cleaning the vulva before or after sexual encounters (OR=13.684, 95%CI=2.843-65.874, P=0.001) were considered to be risk factors of VVC. Conclusion. In conclusion, risk factors of VVC are various, involving ages, hygienic habits, disease history, and other aspects.

Aim:The aim of the study is to evaluate the effects of metformin on pregnancy outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).Methods:We searched electronic databases and bibliographies of relevant papers to identify studies comparing the pregnancy outcomes in the metformin group with those in the placebo or blank control group. Then, we did this meta-analysis based on the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes included early pregnancy loss (EPL), preterm delivery, term delivery, and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Secondary outcomes included pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH), intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), fetal malformation, vaginal delivery (VD), cesarean section (CS), and metformin's side effects, such as nausea or gastrointestinal discomfort. Certainly, data about neonatal death and macrosomia were analyzed if data available.Results:Finally, 13 studies including 5 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 8 cohort studies involving 1606 pregnant women with PCOS were analyzed. The pooled OR of EPL was 0.19 with obvious statistical significance, manifesting that metformin help to lower the rate of EPL (95% CI 0.12–0.28, P < 0.00001). Simultaneously, metformin showed the advantage of reducing the prevalence of preterm delivery (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.20–0.68, P = 0.002). In addition, metformin could promote term delivery greatly and the pooled OR was 5.23 with sharp statistical difference (95% CI 3.12–8.75, P < 0.00001).Conclusion:Metformin treatment in women with PCOS throughout pregnancy could increase the possibility of term delivery, VD and reduce the risk of EPL, preterm labor, pregnancy complications such as GDM and PIH, with no serious side effects. Moreover, metformin was not teratogenic based on the limited data. So we may recommend metformin treatment for women with PCOS during the whole pregnancy period for it is quite beneficial and safe for both mothers and babies.

Prenatal diagnosis of fetal congenital heart disease (CHD) has been shown to have a significant effect on prenatal and postnatal management and outcomes. However, the factors influencing the diagnostic accuracy and which pregnant trimester is the most adaptive for fetal heart disease remain uncertain despite of extensive researches. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of echocardiography for detecting CHD and potential influence factors.We searched Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify relevant studies from January 1, 1990 to August 13, 2015.Overall, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were 68.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.8%–70.2%), 99.8% (95% CI, 99.7%–99.8%), 3026.9 (95% CI, 1417.9–6461.8), 659.41 (95% CI, 346.38–1255.3), and 0.246 (95% CI, 0.187–0.324) respectively (AUC = 0.9924). The pooled sensitivity of basic cardiac echocardiographic examination (BCEE), extended cardiac echocardiographic examination (ECEE), BCEE plus outflow tract view (BCEE + OTV), BCEE + OTV + 3VTV (BCEE plus outflow tract view plus three vessel and trachea view) for the prenatal diagnosis of CHD were 49.0%, 75.5%, 66.1%, and 83.7% respectively. The pooled sensitivity of the prenatal echocardiographic diagnosis of CHD during the first trimester, second trimester, the second to third trimester were 60.3%, 60.9%, and 77.4%, respectively. The pooled sensitivity of BCEE and ECEE for the prenatal diagnosis of CHD during the second to third trimester was significantly higher than that during the second trimester. The pooled sensitivity of the prenatal echocardiographic diagnosis of CHD for pregnancies with low risk, high risk, low and high risk, and unselected risk were 45.4%, 85.1%, 89.1%, and 66.2%, respectively. The sensitivity analysis was robust and risk level was significant source of heterogeneity. Deek test indicated no potential significant publication bias.Prenatal ultrasound is a powerful tool for the diagnosis of CHD; however, echocardiography has individual sensitivity for different gestation period, different levels of risk, and different echo-views.