Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27884916›Full record

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.

Joe Kai, Lee Middleton, Jane Daniels, Helen Pattison, Konstantinos Tryposkiadis, Janesh Gupta, ECLIPSE trial collaborative group

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Quantifying menorrhagia and overview of nonsurgical management of heavy menstrual bleeding.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2024
    Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. 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 · 2023
    Article
  8. 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 · 2022
    Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Joe KaiFaculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
Lee MiddletonBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Jane DanielsBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Helen PattisonSchool of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham.
Konstantinos TryposkiadisBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Janesh Gupta
ECLIPSE trial collaborative group

Funding

Department of Health 02/06/02Department of Health HTA/15/143/01
6 · The paper itself

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

Intrauterine Devices, MedicatedAdultContraceptive Agents, FemaleFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLevonorgestrelMenorrhagiaMiddle AgedQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomContraceptive Agents, FemaleLevonorgestrelgeneral practicelevonorgestrel intrauterine systemmedical treatmentmenorrhagiamenstrualprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID27884916
PMCPMC5198650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.