ReviewDrug safety2008
A benefit-risk review of systemic haemostatic agents: part 2: in excessive or heavy menstrual bleeding.
Review in Drug safety, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for heavy menstrual bleeding.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Gingival enlargement in von Willebrand disease: A case report.Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology · 2014Article
- Satisfaction and health-related quality of life in women with heavy menstrual bleeding; results from a non-interventional trial of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or conventional medical therapy.International journal of women's health · 2014Article
- Estrogen and thrombosis: controversies and common sense.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2011Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first part of this benefit-risk review examined the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of systemic haemostatic agents commonly used in major surgery. The second part of this review examines the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of systemic haemostatic agents commonly used in the treatment of excessive or heavy menstrual bleeding, and provides individual benefit-risk profiles that may assist clinicians in selecting appropriate pharmacological therapy in this setting. Historically, surgery has played a dominant role in treatment; however, pharmacological therapy is increasingly popular, especially in women who wish to retain their fertility. When selecting the appropriate treatment, patient preference should be considered, as well as the benefits and risks associated with each agent. Recommended pharmacological therapies that are effective and generally well tolerated include the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and the oral agents tranexamic acid, NSAIDs (e.g. mefenamic acid) and combined estrogen/progestogen oral contraceptives. In patients with an underlying bleeding disorder (e.g. von Willebrand disease), an additional option is intranasal desmopressin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18366238What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.