Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14717620›Full record

ReviewDrug safety2004

Benefits and risks of pharmacological agents used for the treatment of menorrhagia.

Samendra Nath Roy, Siladitya Bhattacharya

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drug safety, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for heavy menstrual bleeding.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Use of medical, surgical and complementary treatments among women with fibroids.European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2014
    Article
  4. Caring for the breast cancer survivor's health and well-being.World journal of clinical oncology · 2014
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Heavy menstrual flow: current and future trends in management.Reviews in obstetrics & gynecology · 2013
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Samendra Nath RoyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Aberdeen, United Kingdom. ogy218@abdn.ac.uk
Siladitya Bhattacharya
Aberdeen Maternity Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Menorrhagia affects the lives of many women. The assessment of menstrual flow is highly subjective and gauging the severity of the condition by objective assessment of menstrual blood loss is impractical. In treating menorrhagia, the primary aim should be to improve quality of life. Women are willing to undergo quite invasive treatment in order to achieve this. Drug therapy is the initial treatment of choice and the only option for those who wish to preserve their reproductive function. Despite the availability of a number of drugs, there is a general lack of an evidence-based approach, marked variation in practice and continuing uncertainty regarding the most appropriate therapy. Adverse effects and problems with compliance also undermine the success of medical treatment. This article reviews the available literature to compare the efficacy and tolerability of different medical treatments for menorrhagia. Tranexamic acid and mefenamic acid are among the most effective first-line drugs used to treat menorrhagia. Despite being used extensively in the past, oral luteal phase norethisterone is probably one of the least effective agents. Women requiring contraception have a choice of the combined oral contraceptive pill, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or long-acting progestogens. Danazol, gestrinone and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues are all effective in terms of reducing menstrual blood loss but adverse effects and costs limit their long-term use. They have a role as second-line drugs for a short period of time in women awaiting surgery. While current evidence suggests that the LNG-IUS is an effective treatment, further evaluation, including long-term follow up, is awaited. Meanwhile, the quest continues for the ideal form of medical treatment for menorrhagia--one that is effective, affordable and acceptable.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentTreatment OutcomeAntifibrinolytic AgentsAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalContraceptives, Oral, HormonalDanazolEstrogen AntagonistsEthamsylateFemaleGestrinoneGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHumansMenorrhagiaProgestinsAntifibrinolytic AgentsAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalContraceptives, Oral, HormonalDanazolEstrogen AntagonistsEthamsylateGestrinoneGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneProgestins

Identifiers

PMID14717620
OpenAlexW2031133001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.