ArticleContraception: X2019
Continuous vs. cyclic combined hormonal contraceptives for treatment of dysmenorrhea: a systematic review.
Article in Contraception: X, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long Term Effects of Acupuncture for Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2025Review
- Prevalence of chronic pelvic pain and primary dysmenorrhea in women of reproductive age in Ecuador.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Effects of wet cupping in a rat model of primary dysmenorrhea.Journal of Ayurveda and integrative medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review aims to evaluate the benefits of oral continuous combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in managing dysmenorrhea by comparing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of continuous vs. cyclic CHC use for the following outcomes: (a) reducing dysmenorrhea duration and frequency, (b) severity, (c) recurrence and (d) interference with daily activity. STUDY
designCochrane, PUBMED and Popline databases were searched from 1934 to 2018 for all relevant studies evaluating CHC for treatment of dysmenorrhea. A study was selected if it (a) compared continuous regimen vs. cyclic regimen of oral CHC, (b) measured dysmenorrhea as a primary or secondary outcome, (c) was an RCT and (d) was published in English. Due to differences in CHC used and outcome measurement, a systematic analysis of individual study results and a limited meta-analysis were conducted.
resultsOf 780 studies that were screened by title and abstract, 8 were included in the final analysis; 6 evaluated cyclic vs. continuous CHC, and 2 evaluated cyclic vs. extended/flexible CHC use. Quality of evidence was low for all outcome measures. Overall, compared to cyclic use, flexible/extended CHC resulted in 4 fewer days of dysmenorrhea. Studies revealed conflicting results for interference with daily activity, pain severity and pain recurrence. Side effects were few in both comparison groups.
conclusionsContinuous or extended/flexible CHC use may reduce dysmenorrhea duration compared to cyclic regimen; however, more rigorous research is needed. IMPLICATIONS: This systematic review shows that continuous CHC use may reduce dysmenorrhea duration compared to cyclic regimen, although the quality of evidence is low. Future double-blinded RCTs with more rigorous study design, consistent outcome measures and comprehensive outcome reporting are needed.
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.