SynthesisAdvances in therapy2022
Efficacy of Low-Dose Estrogen-Progestins and Progestins in Japanese Women with Dysmenorrhea: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Advances in therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06460870 (Effect of Mojzisova Method on Pain, Menstrual Symptom and Insomnia in Primary Dysmenorrhea), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Effect of Mojzisova Method on Pain, Menstrual Symptom and Insomnia in Primary Dysmenorrhea
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for primary dysmenorrhoea: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of desogestrel/ethinylestradiol 150/20 flexible extended regimen (FREEDOM 150/20) in dysmenorrhea: phase 3 study in Japan.F&S reports · 2026Article
- Progestins - a review of clinical application in gynecology.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Catamenial Pneumothorax in a Patient Undergoing Low-Dose Estrogen-Progestin Therapy: A Case Report.Cureus · 2024Article
- Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research Landscape and Hotspots on Dysmenorrhea: Where are We Now?Journal of pain research · 2023Article
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
introductionAlthough several studies suggest beneficial effects of low-dose estrogen-progestins (LEPs) and progestins on dysmenorrhea in Japanese women, the difference in efficacy between drugs remains unknown.
methodsWe identified studies by searching the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ICHUSHI databases and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used total dysmenorrhea score and visual analogue scale (VAS) as outcome measures to evaluate LEPs and progestins for primary and secondary dysmenorrhea. We analyzed results by meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA).
resultsWe identified 10 articles on eight RCTs and included seven drugs (six LEPs and one progestin, i.e., dienogest) and placebo in the analysis. Meta-analysis showed improvements in total dysmenorrhea score and VAS for almost all drugs compared with placebo. In NMA, VAS in secondary dysmenorrhea improved more with dienogest than with norethisterone/ethinylestradiol (mean difference - 25.84 [95% CrI - 44.46 to - 7.15]). In the comparison of administration regimens, VAS improved more with progestin-continuous than LEP-cyclic and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) of LEP-extended and progestin-continuous appeared to be higher than that of LEP-cyclic.
conclusionsWe confirmed that LEPs and dienogest are effective for primary and secondary dysmenorrhea and suggest that continuous regimens may be more effective than cyclic regimens in improving outcomes.
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.