SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
LNG-IUS vs. medical treatments for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of pre-operative endometrial biopsy accuracy and etiological distribution in abnormal uterine bleeding using the PALM-COEIN classification.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A Study of the Effect of the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System on the Management of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding.Cureus · 2025Article
- The effect of hysteroscopic endometrial polypectomy combined with LNG-IUS treatment on polyp recurrence: a multicenter retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Incidence and Impact on Quality of Life of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding in Women on Oral Anticoagulant Therapy.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To compare efficacy and safety of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with medical treatments for women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Materials and methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in November 2021. All meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects model. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021295379. Results: A total of trials (with 14 references) reporting on 1,677 women were included in this systematic review. The majority of the included RCTs were rated with low-to-unclear risk of bias in selection, detection, attrition, reporting, and other bias. All RCTs were rated as high risk in performance bias because blinding was difficult to ensure in the compared groups. Results of meta-analyses revealed that the number of clinical responders was greater in the LNG-IUS group than that in the medical treatments group at both 6-month (steroidal: five RCTs; Conclusion: Evidence indicates that LNG-IUS is superior to the medical treatments in short-term and medium-term clinical responses, blood loss control, compliance, and satisfaction. Meanwhile, frequency of adverse events related to LNG-IUS is acceptable. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42021259335, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021295379.
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.