ArticlePloS one2019
The cost-effectiveness of oral contraceptives compared to 'no hormonal treatment' for endometriosis-related pain: An economic evaluation.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applications of Structural Expert Elicitations for Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review Update.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Pain-focused psychological interventions in women with endometriosis: A systematic review.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2023Pooled it
- The Use of Expert Elicitation among Computational Modeling Studies in Health Research: A Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain by means of long-acting progestogen therapy: the PRE-EMPT RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Trial
- Economic evaluation of a digital symptom checker for endometriosis using a Markov decision process model.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of dienogest compared to gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists for the management of endometriosis in Vietnam.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Article
- Economic Implications of Endometriosis: A Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Review
- A Rare Case of Endometriosis of the Small Bowel.Case reports in pathology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a preliminary cost-effectiveness model that compares oral contraceptives and 'no hormonal treatment' for the treatment of endometriosis-related pain.
methodsA de novo preliminary state transition (Markov) model was developed. The model was informed by systematic literature review and expert opinion. The uncertainty around the results was assessed both by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The economic evaluation was conducted from National Health Service (NHS) England perspective. The main outcome measure was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), with cost-effectiveness plane and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves presented for alternative willingness-to-pay thresholds.
resultsOral contraceptives dominated 'no hormonal treatment' and provided more QALYs at a lower cost than 'no hormonal treatment', with a cost-effectiveness probability of 98%. A one-way sensitivity analysis excluding general practitioner consultations showed that oral contraceptives were still cost-effective.
conclusionsThe analyses showed that oral contraceptives could be an effective option for the treatment of endometriosis, as this treatment was shown to provide a higher level of QALYs at a lower cost, compared to 'no hormonal treatment'. The results are subject to considerable parameter uncertainty as a range of assumptions were required as part of the modelling process.
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.