Trial reportClimacteric : the journal of the International Menopause Society2016
Effect of ospemifene on moderate or severe symptoms of vulvar and vaginal atrophy.
Trial report in Climacteric : the journal of the International Menopause Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Objective evaluation of the acute effects of pelvic floor muscle training on vaginal dryness in postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled pilot study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Trial
- Management of genitourinary syndrome of menopause in breast cancer survivors: An update.World journal of clinical oncology · 2022Review
- Addressing Vulvovaginal Atrophy (VVA)/Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause (GSM) for Healthy Aging in Women.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2019Review
- The Tissue-Selective Estrogen Complex (Bazedoxifene/Conjugated Estrogens) for the Treatment of Menopause.International journal of endocrinology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether assessment of all moderate-to-severe symptoms at baseline gives a more accurate evaluation of the treatment effect of ospemifene in vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) than the most bothersome symptom (MBS) approach.
methodsData were pooled from two pivotal phase-III clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of oral ospemifene 60 mg/day for the treatment of symptoms of VVA (n = 1463 subjects). Symptoms of vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, and vaginal and/or vulvar irritation/itching reported as moderate or severe at baseline were evaluated. Clinically relevant differences between ospemifene and placebo were analyzed using a four-point severity scoring system and presented as improvement, substantial improvement, or relief.
resultsSubjects in these studies reported statistically significant improvement, substantial improvement, and relief for vaginal dryness (p < 0.00001), dyspareunia (p < 0.001) and statistically significant improvement and relief for vaginal and/or vulvar irritation/itching (p < 0.01) from baseline to week 12 with ospemifene compared with placebo. A similar trend was observed for women who reported substantial improvement of vaginal and/or vulvar irritation/itching.
conclusionsFor drug registration purposes, the use of the MBS model is appealing because of its simplicity and ease of scientific validation. However, the MBS model may underestimate the total magnitude of the clinical benefit of ospemifene treatment for symptomatic women suffering from VVA.
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.