Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28444736›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) for uterine fibroids.

Ally Murji, Lucy Whitaker, Tiffany L Chow, Mara L Sobel

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Pharmacological treatment for uterine fibroids.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Article
  10. Exploring New Treatment Strategies for Endometriosis-Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Contemporary Management of Uterine Fibroids.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Endometrial Changes Associated with Mifepristone: A Review.International journal of general medicine · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ally MurjiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, 700 University Ave - 3rd Floor, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5G 1Z5.
Lucy WhitakerSimpson Centre for Reproductive Health, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh, UK, EH16 4SA.
Tiffany L ChowUniversity of Toronto, 27 King's College Circle, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1A1.
Mara L SobelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, 700 University Ave - 3rd Floor, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5G 1Z5.
University of Toronto · CAEdinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBMount Sinai Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUterine fibroids are smooth muscle tumours arising from the uterus. These tumours, although benign, are commonly associated with abnormal uterine bleeding, bulk symptoms and reproductive dysfunction. The importance of progesterone in fibroid pathogenesis supports selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) as effective treatment. Both biochemical and clinical evidence suggests that SPRMs may reduce fibroid growth and ameliorate symptoms. SPRMs can cause unique histological changes to the endometrium that are not related to cancer, are not precancerous and have been found to be benign and reversible. This review summarises randomised trials conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of SPRMs as a class of medication for treatment of individuals with fibroids.

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SPRMs for treatment of premenopausal women with uterine fibroids. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and clinical trials registries from database inception to May 2016. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted experts in the field to request additional data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of premenopausal women with fibroids who were treated for at least three months with a SPRM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed all eligible studies identified by the search. We extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently using standard forms. We analysed data using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. We performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Our primary outcome was change in fibroid-related symptoms. MAIN

resultsWe included in the review 14 RCTs with a total of 1215 study participants. We could not extract complete data from three studies. We included in the meta-analysis 11 studies involving 1021 study participants: 685 received SPRMs and 336 were given a control intervention (placebo or leuprolide). Investigators evaluated three SPRMs: mifepristone (five studies), ulipristal acetate (four studies) and asoprisnil (two studies). The primary outcome was change in fibroid-related symptoms (symptom severity, health-related quality of life, abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain). Adverse event reporting in the included studies was limited to SPRM-associated endometrial changes. More than half (8/14) of these studies were at low risk of bias in all domains. The most common limitation of the other studies was poor reporting of methods. The main limitation for the overall quality of evidence was potential publication bias. SPRM versus placebo SPRM treatment resulted in improvements in fibroid symptom severity (MD -20.04 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.63 to -13.46; four RCTs, 171 women, I AUTHORS'

conclusionsShort-term use of SPRMs resulted in improved quality of life, reduced menstrual bleeding and higher rates of amenorrhoea than were seen with placebo. Thus, SPRMs may provide effective treatment for women with symptomatic fibroids. Evidence derived from one RCT showed no difference between leuprolide acetate and SPRM with respect to improved quality of life and bleeding symptoms. Evidence was insufficient to show whether effectiveness was different between SPRMs and leuprolide. Investigators more frequently observed SPRM-associated endometrial changes in women treated with SPRMs than in those treated with placebo or leuprolide acetate. As noted above, SPRM-associated endometrial changes are benign, are not related to cancer and are not precancerous. Reporting bias may impact the conclusion of this meta-analysis. Well-designed RCTs comparing SPRMs versus other treatments are needed.

Indexed as

AmenorrheaAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalEstrenesFemaleHumansLeiomyomaLeuprolideMenstruationMifepristoneNorpregnadienesOximesPelvic PainQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReceptors, ProgesteroneUterine NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalasoprisnilEstrenesLeuprolideMifepristoneNorpregnadienesOximesReceptors, Progesteroneulipristal acetate

Identifiers

PMID28444736
PMCPMC6478099
OpenAlexW1802161029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.