Table 3.

Studies of UAE for adenomyosis where the primary outcome was assessed using a validated QOL questionnaire (Froeling et al. 2012; Smeets et al. 2012; Nijenhuis et al. 2015; de Bruijn et al. 2017a; de Bruijn et al., 2017b; Siskin et al. 2001; Millo et al. 2010)

Study, year	Study design	Period	Cohort size (n)	Embolic	Follow up (months)	Indication	Primary Outcome	Secondary Outcome	Quality score
Siskin et al. 2001	Retrospective cohort	NR	13	255–500 μm PVA	10.2	AUB, dysmenorrhea, bulk	Symptom improvement, HRQOL	JZ thickness	13
Millo et al. 2010	Prospective cohort	NR	7	300–500 μm PVA	6	AUB, dysmenorrhea, bulk	Symptom improvement, UFS-QOL	NA	15
Froeling et al. 2012	Prospective cohort	2001–2009	40	355–900 μm TGM	40	AUB, dysmenorrhea, bulk	Symptom improvement, UFS-QOL	NA	15
Smeets et al. 2012	Prospective cohort	1999–2006	40	500–700 μm TGM	65	AUB, dysmenorrhea, bulk	Symptom improvement, UFS-QOL	Uterine volume, JZ thickness, infarction	18
aNijenhuis et al. 2015	Prospective cohort	2006–2010	29	500–900 μm hydrogel microspheres	37	AUB, dysmenorrhea, bulk	Symptom improvement, UFS-QOL	Uterine volume	19
ade Bruijn et al., 2017a, b	Prospective cohort	2006–2010	29	500–900 μm hydrogel microspheres	84	AUB, dysmenorrhea, bulk	Symptom improvement, UFS-QOL	Menopause	NR

NR not reported, AUB abnormal uterine bleeding, HRQOL health related quality of life, UFS-QOL Uterine fibroid symptom and quality of life

^asame patient cohort with outcomes reported at 3 years and 7 years. The De Bruijn article was not included in the systematic review