SynthesisJournal of clinical epidemiology2011
Systematic review highlights difficulty interpreting diverse clinical outcomes in abnormal uterine bleeding trials.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Uterine artery embolization for symptomatic uterine fibroids.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Nonsurgical management of heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2013Pooled it
- A systematic review comparing hysterectomy with less-invasive treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding.Journal of minimally invasive gynecologyPooled it
- Low dose dexamethasone as treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: A response-adaptive randomised placebo-controlled dose-finding parallel group trial (DexFEM).EBioMedicine · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Quantitative serial MRI of the treated fibroid uterus.PloS one · 2014Trial
- Medroxyprogesterone Acetate for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Due to Ovulatory Dysfunction: The Effect of 2 Different-Duration Regimens.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022Article
- Quality of life in adolescents with heavy menstrual bleeding: Validation of the Adolescent Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire (aMBQ).Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2021Article
- Menstruation: science and society.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2020Review
- The COMET Handbook: version 1.0.Trials · 2017Review
- The menstrual bleeding questionnaire: development and validation of a comprehensive patient-reported outcome instrument for heavy menstrual bleeding.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2015Article
- A framework for crafting clinical practice guidelines that are relevant to the care and management of people with multimorbidity.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Review
- Abnormal uterine bleeding, health status, and usual source of medical care: analyses using the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2013Article
- Practice patterns and attitudes about treating abnormal uterine bleeding: a national survey of obstetricians and gynecologists.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2011Article
- PROMIS PF correlates with HOOS, JR in patients with hip pain.Journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectives(1) To systematically collect and organize into clinical categories all outcomes reported in trials for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB); (2) to rank the importance of outcomes for patient decision making; and (3) to improve future comparisons of effects in trials of AUB interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingSystematic review of English-language randomized controlled trials of AUB treatments in MEDLINE from 1950 to June 2008. All outcomes and definitions were extracted and organized into major outcome categories by an expert group. Each outcome was ranked "critically important," "important," or "not important" for informing patients' choices.
resultsOne hundred thirteen articles from 79 trials met the criteria. One hundred fourteen different outcomes were identified, only 15 (13%) of which were ranked as critically important and 29 (25%) as important. Outcomes were grouped into eight categories: (1) bleeding; (2) quality of life; (3) pain; (4) sexual health; (5) patient satisfaction; (6) bulk-related complaints; (7) need for subsequent surgical treatment; and (8) adverse events.
conclusionTo improve the quality, consistency, and utility of future AUB trials, we recommend assessing a limited number of clinical outcomes for bleeding, disease-specific quality of life, pain, sexual health, and bulk-related symptoms both before and after treatment and reporting satisfaction and adverse events. Further development of validated patient-based outcome measures and the standardization of outcome reporting are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.