ArticleObstetrics and gynecology international2016
Knowledge of Latin American Obstetricians and Gynecologists regarding Heavy Menstrual Bleeding.
Article in Obstetrics and gynecology international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common gynecological complaint affecting quality of life. Objectives. To assess knowledge on diagnosis and treatments of HMB of Latin American (LA) obstetricians and gynecologists (OBGYNs). Methods. A survey was conducted during a scientific meeting, organized to provide updated information on topics of reproductive medicine to OBGYNs from 12 LA countries who were invited to respond to a multiple-choice questionnaire. Results. Of the 210 OBGYNs participating in the survey, from 169 (80.4%) to 203 (96.7%) answered the questions. Most respondents (80%) gave accurate answers regarding the amount of blood loss which defines HMB, underreported the proportion of women who consulted due to HMB, and were aware that the use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) with ethynyl estradiol is not an adequate treatment in women with HMB. Female OBGYNs and those who worked in the private sector were more prone to report a higher possibility of improvement of HMB with a COC that contained estradiol valerate and dienogest or with a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Conclusions. In general, the respondents were aware of the importance of HMB in gynecological practice and of the new medical treatments and underreported the proportion of women who consulted due to HMB.
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.