SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020
Progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for uterine fibroids (other than preoperative medical therapy).
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medical treatment of fibroids: FIGO best practice guidance.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Guideline
- The efficacy of progestins in managing pain associated with endometriosis, fibroids and pre-menstrual syndrome: a systematic review.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with LNG-IUS for adenomyosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Pooled it
- Factors associated with hysterectomy after failure of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system treatment in women with abnormal uterine bleeding.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Increased HSD11β1 Expression in Human Leiomyomatous Uteri: Implication for Enhanced Glucocorticoid Signaling.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- Nutrition and Uterine Fibroids: Clinical Impact and Emerging Therapeutic Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Racial Disparities in Medical Management of Uterine Fibroids Prior to Myomectomy or Hysterectomy.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- Surgery and minimally invasive treatments for uterine fibroids.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Currently Available Treatment Modalities for Uterine Fibroids.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device to treat abnormal uterine bleeding; not one treatment option fits all.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2023Article
- Epigenomic and enhancer dysregulation in uterine leiomyomas.Human reproduction update · 2022Review
- Uterine Fibroids: Hiding in Plain Sight.Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Review
- Molecular and Cellular Insights into the Development of Uterine Fibroids.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Impact of Contraception on Uterine Fibroids.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems can reduce fibroid-related symptoms. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013.
objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases to July 2020. We also searched trials registers for ongoing and registered trials, and checked references of relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All identified published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN
resultsThis updated review included four studies with 221 women with uterine fibroids. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded for serious risk of bias, due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS) versus hysterectomy There was no information on the outcomes of interest, including adverse events. LNG-IUS versus low dose combined oral contraceptive (COC) At 12 months, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced the percentage of abnormal uterine bleeding, measured with the alkaline hematin test (mean difference (MD) 77.50%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.44 to 84.56; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or the pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC; MD 34.50%, 95% CI 11.59 to 57.41; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence); increased haemoglobin levels (MD 1.50 g/dL, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or reduced fibroid size more than COC (MD 1.90%, 95% CI -12.24 to 16.04; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure adverse events. LNG-IUS versus oral progestogen (norethisterone acetate (NETA)) Compared to NETA, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced abnormal uterine bleeding more from baseline to six months (visual bleeding score; MD 23.75 points, 95% CI 1.26 to 46.24; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence); increased the percentage of change in haemoglobin from baseline to three months (MD 4.53%, 95% CI 1.46 to 7.60; 1 RCT, 48 women; very low-quality evidence), or from baseline to six months (MD 10.14%, 95% CI 5.57 to 14.71; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure fibroid size. Spotting (adverse event) was more likely to be reported by women with the LNG-IUS (64.3%) than by those taking NETA (30%; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Oral progestogen (dienogest, desogestrel) versus goserelin acetate Compared to goserelin acetate, we are uncertain whether abnormal uterine bleeding was reduced at 12 weeks with dienogest (PBAC; MD 216.00 points, 95% CI 149.35 to 282.65; 1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or desogestrel (PBAC; MD 78.00 points, 95% CI 28.94 to 127.06; 1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). Vasomotor symptoms (adverse events, e.g. hot flashes) are only associated with goserelin acetate (55%), not with dienogest (1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or with desogestrel (1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not report fibroid size. AUTHORS'
conclusionsBecause of very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS reduces abnormal uterine bleeding or increases haemoglobin levels in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids, compared to COC or norethisterone acetate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the LNG-IUS reduces the size of uterine fibroids compared to COC. We are uncertain whether oral progestogens reduce abnormal uterine bleeding as effectively as goserelin acetate, but women reported fewer adverse events, such as hot flashes.
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.