Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19821266›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Oral contraceptive pill for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Cindy Farquhar, Julie Brown

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Heavy menstrual bleeding diagnosis and medical management.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2017
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Heavy menstrual flow: current and future trends in management.Reviews in obstetrics & gynecology · 2013
    Article
  14. Hormonal anticonception anno 2013: a clinician's view.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2013
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Open-access transvaginal sonography in women of reproductive age with abnormal vaginal bleeding: a descriptive study in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cindy FarquharObstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, FMHS Park Road, Grafton, Auckland, New Zealand, 1003.
Julie Brown
University of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMenorrhagia (heavy menstrual bleeding) is a benign yet debilitating social and health condition. Treatments prescribed in order to reduce excessive menstrual blood loss include prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors, antifibrinolytics, the oral contraceptive pill and other hormones. The combined oral contraceptive pill (OCP) is claimed to have a variety of beneficial, inducing a regular shedding of a thinner endometrium and inhibiting ovulation thus having the effect of treating menorrhagia and providing contraception.

objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of oral contraceptive pills compared with other medical therapies, placebo or no therapy in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (search dates: Oct 1996, May 2002, June 2004, April 2006 and June 2009) for all publications which describe randomised trials of OCP for the treatment of menorrhagia. This register is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, the hand searching of 20 relevant journals and conference proceedings, and searches of several key grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled comparisons of OCP versus other medical therapies, placebo or no treatment for the treatment of menorrhagia. Women of reproductive years with regular heavy periods, measured either objectively or subjectively and greater than, or equal to, two months follow up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All assessments of trial quality and data extraction were performed unblinded by at least two reviewers. Only one trial of 45 women met the inclusion criteria and none were excluded. MAIN

resultsAs the trial used a cross-over design, only data from the first treatment period (cycles three and four) were analysed. The results from all the three mefenamic acid groups were combined. There was no significant difference in menstrual blood loss (MBL) between those women treated with the OCP and danazol, mefenamic acid or naproxen. AUTHORS'

conclusionsOne small study found no significant difference between groups treated with OCP, mefenamic acid, low dose danazol or naproxen. Overall, the evidence from the one study is not sufficient to adequately assess the effectiveness of OCP.This review was unable to achieve its stated objectives because of the paucity of the data.

Indexed as

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalContraceptives, OralDanazolDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHumansMefenamic AcidMenorrhagiaNaproxenAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalContraceptives, OralDanazolMefenamic AcidNaproxen

Identifiers

PMID19821266
OpenAlexW1512767282

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.