Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2016
Usual medical treatments or levonorgestrel-IUS for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: long-term randomised pragmatic trial in primary care.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- LNG-IUS vs. medical treatments for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Endometrial sampling in low-risk patients with abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.BMC family practice · 2018Pooled it
- Quantifying menorrhagia and overview of nonsurgical management of heavy menstrual bleeding.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2024Review
- Rates of medical or surgical treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: the ECLIPSE trial 10-year observational follow-up study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Observational
- Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for heavy menstrual bleeding (UCON): a randomised controlled phase III trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Women's experiences of heavy menstrual bleeding and medical treatment: a qualitative study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Medical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding in primary care: 10-year data from the ECLIPSE trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Observational
- Menstrual problems in chronic immune thrombocytopenia: A monthly challenge - a cohort study and review.British journal of haematology · 2022Review
- Predictive factors for failure of the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system in women with heavy menstrual bleeding.BMC women's health · 2021Article
- Analysis of the results of invasive diagnostic procedures in patients referred to gynecologic department due to abnormal uterine bleeding.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common, chronic problem affecting women and health services. However, long-term evidence on treatment in primary care is lacking.
aimTo assess the effectiveness of commencing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or usual medical treatments for women presenting with HMB in general practice. DESIGN AND
settingA pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, open-label, long term, randomised controlled trial in 63 primary care practices across the English Midlands.
methodIn total, 571 women aged 25-50 years, with HMB were randomised to LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic/mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient reported Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS, measuring effect of HMB on practical difficulties, social life, psychological and physical health, and work and family life; scores from 0 to 100). Secondary outcomes included surgical intervention (endometrial ablation/hysterectomy), general quality of life, sexual activity, and safety.
resultsAt 5 years post-randomisation, 424 (74%) women provided data. While the difference between LNG-IUS and usual treatment groups was not significant (3.9 points; 95% confidence interval = -0.6 to 8.3; P = 0.09), MMAS scores improved significantly in both groups from baseline (mean increase, 44.9 and 43.4 points, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of surgical intervention were low in both groups (surgery-free survival was 80% and 77%; hazard ratio 0.90; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.31; P = 0.6). There was no difference in generic quality of life, sexual activity scores, or serious adverse events.
conclusionLarge improvements in symptom relief across both groups show treatment for HMB can be successfully initiated with long-term benefit and with only modest need for surgery.
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.