Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16625593›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

J Marjoribanks, A Lethaby, C Farquhar

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 145 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Usual medical treatments or levonorgestrel-IUS for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: long-term randomised pragmatic trial in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J MarjoribanksCochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, PO Box 92019, Auckland, New Zealand, 1003. j.marjoribanks@auckland.ac.nz
A Lethaby
C Farquhar
University of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) significantly impairs the quality of life of many otherwise healthy women. Perception of HMB is subjective and management usually depends upon what symptoms are acceptable to the individual. Medical treatment options include oral medication and a hormone-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). Surgical options include conservative surgery (uterine resection or ablation) and hysterectomy.

objectivesTo compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of surgery versus medical therapy for HMB. SEARCH STRATEGY: In September 2005 we searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE EMBASE, Current Contents, Biological Abstracts, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched reference lists of articles retrieved and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled randomised trials comparing conservative surgery or hysterectomy versus medical therapy (oral or intrauterine) for HMB DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trials for quality and extracted data . MAIN

resultsThe eight included trials randomised 821 women. In comparisons of oral medication versus surgery, 58% of women randomised to medical treatment had received surgery by two years. Compared to oral medication, endometrial resection was significantly more effective in controlling bleeding (at four months: OR 10.62, 95% CI 5.30 to 21.27) and significantly less likely to cause side effects (at four months: OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.31) and hysterectomy resulted in significantly greater improvements in mental health (at six months p = 0.04). In comparisons of LNG-IUS versus conservative surgery or hysterectomy, at one year there was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction rates or quality of life, though adverse effects were significantly less likely with conservative surgery (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.49). Two trials found conservative surgery significantly more effective than LNG-IUS in controlling bleeding at one year (OR 3.99, 95% CI 1.53 to 10.38). Two other small trials with longer follow-up found no difference or favoured LNG-IUS - however in both these studies the data were skewed and fewer than two thirds of participants were analysed. Hysterectomy stopped all bleeding but caused serious complications for some women. AUTHORS'

conclusionsSurgery, especially hysterectomy, reduces menstrual bleeding at one year more than medical treatments but LNG-IUS appears equally effective in improving quality of life. The evidence for longer term comparisons is weak and inconsistent. Oral medication suits a minority of women long term.

Indexed as

AdultAntifibrinolytic AgentsContraceptives, Oral, HormonalEndometriumFemaleHumansHysterectomyIntrauterine Devices, MedicatedMenorrhagiaMiddle AgedQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntifibrinolytic AgentsContraceptives, Oral, Hormonal

Identifiers

PMID16625593
OpenAlexW4239892039

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.