Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25926984›Full record

ReviewF1000prime reports2015

Recent advances in managing and understanding menstrual disorders.

Luis Bahamondes, Moazzam Ali

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in F1000prime reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Menstrual Disturbances in Endocrine Disorders: A Narrative Review.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Possible therapeutic effects ofAvicenna journal of phytomedicine
    Review
  12. Article
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.

Luis BahamondesHuman Reproduction Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Campinas Caixa Postal 6181; 13084-971, Campinas Brazil.
Moazzam AliReproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization Avenue Appia CH-1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Menstrual disorders are a major reason for gynaecological consultations worldwide and, unfortunately there are many different definitions and classifications of this condition. Clear definitions and terminology are necessary for scientific literature, particularly for clinicians, and for clinical trials comparing two treatments. The International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Menstrual Disorders Working Group has proposed abandoning the use of one common term, dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB), while continuing to use the terms abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). Furthermore, the group issued the PALM-COEIN classification system for menstrual disorders, which has quickly been adopted around the world. The PALM-COEIN system allows clinicians and researchers to identify and classify women with both AUB and HMB in a systematic manner, provides reliable information for research purposes and for epidemiological and prevalence studies in different settings, and supports accurate diagnoses and treatment. Additionally, this classification system is useful for selecting treatments appropriate for different stages of women's reproductive years and for different patterns of menstrual bleeding. Among the proposed treatments are the use of combined oral contraceptives, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

Identifiers

PMID25926984
PMCPMC4371378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.