ArticleHuman reproduction open2020
CHC for pelvic pain in women with endometriosis: ineffectiveness or discontinuation due to side-effects.
Article in Human reproduction open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review to determine use of the Endometriosis Health Profiles to measure quality of life outcomes in women with endometriosis.Human reproduction update · 2024Pooled it
- The long road of drug development for endometriosis - Pains, gains, and hopes.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2024Review
- Proposal for targeted, neo-evolutionary-oriented secondary prevention of early-onset endometriosis and adenomyosis. Part II: medical interventions.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionWhat are the use patterns and factors associated with combined hormonal contraception (CHC) ineffectiveness or discontinuation due to side-effects in patients with endometriosis and pelvic pain? SUMMARY ANSWER: Worse chronic pelvic pain (CPP) severity and pelvic floor myalgia were associated with continuous CHC ineffectiveness, while poorer quality-of-life was associated with continuous CHC discontinuation due to side-effects. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: CHC is a first line of therapy for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain in women. However, some patients state that CHC is ineffective for their pain, while others have to discontinue CHC due to side-effects. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Analysis of a prospective patient database from a tertiary care referral center for patients with endometriosis and pelvic pain between December 2013 and April 2015 was carried out. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING AND
methodsA total of 373 patients of reproductive age with endometriosis from the database were included in the study. Data included patient self-reported questionnaires, physical examination findings and validated instruments. There were four variables of interest: history of cyclical CHC ineffectiveness (yes/no), history of cyclical CHC discontinuation due to side-effects (yes/no), history of continuous CHC ineffectiveness (yes/no) and history of continuous CHC discontinuation due to side-effects (yes/no). The primary outcome was CPP severity for the past 3 months (score of 0-10), and secondary outcomes were other pelvic pain scores, quality-of-life on the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP-30) and underlying conditions including irritable bowel syndrome, painful bladder syndrome, abdominal wall pain, pelvic floor myalgia and depression, anxiety and pain catastrophizing. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Among the 373 cases in the dataset, prior cyclical CHC use was reported by 228 (61.1%) women, of which 103 (27.6%) stated it was ineffective for their pain and 94 (25.2%) stated they discontinued CHC due to side-effects. Previous continuous CHC use was reported by 175 (46.9%) women, of which 67 (18.0%) stated it was ineffective and 59 (15.8%) stated they discontinued due to side-effects. Worse CPP severity in the last 3 months was associated with a history of continuous CHC ineffectiveness ( LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study involved patient recall and no longitudinal follow-up. Also, we do not have data on the type of side-effect that led to discontinuation. Medication ineffectiveness was reported subjectively by the patient rather than using standardized criteria. Finally, the diagnosis of endometriosis was based on previous surgery or a current nodule or endometrioma on examination/ultrasound; without prospective surgical data on all the patients, it was not possible to do a sub-analysis by current surgical features (e.g. stage). WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsIn women with endometriosis, CHC ineffectiveness was associated with worse CPP and pelvic floor myalgia, which suggests myofascial or nervous system contributors to CPP that does not respond to hormonal suppression. A tender pelvic floor, as a sign of pelvic floor myalgia, may be a clinical marker of patients with endometriosis who are less likely to have an optimal response to hormonal suppression. For women who discontinue CHC due to side-effects, research is needed to help alleviate these side-effects as these patients report worse quality-of-life. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Transitional Open Operating Grant (MOP-142273) as well as BC Women's Hospital and the Women's Health Research Institute. PY is also supported by a Health Professional Investigator Award from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. MB/CA has financial affiliations with Abbvie and Allergan; the other authors have no conflicts of interest.
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.