Observational studyThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2022
Medical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding in primary care: 10-year data from the ECLIPSE trial.
Observational study in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Medical Management in Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: A Prospective Cohort Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Quantifying menorrhagia and overview of nonsurgical management of heavy menstrual bleeding.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2024Review
- Women's experiences of heavy menstrual bleeding and medical treatment: a qualitative study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Preoperative diagnosis and management of inherited bleeding disorders in female adolescents and adults.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem that can significantly affect women's lives. There is a lack of evidence on long-term outcomes after seeking treatment.
aimTo assess continuation rates of medical treatments and rates of surgery in women 10 years after initial management for HMB in primary care. DESIGN AND
settingThis was a prospective observational cohort study.
methodWomen with HMB who participated in the ECLIPSE primary care trial (ISRCTN86566246) completed questionnaires 10 years after randomisation to the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or other usual medical treatments (oral tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen; or progesterone alone). Outcomes were rates of surgery, medical treatments, and quality of life using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and EuroQoL EQ-5D.
resultsThe responding cohort of 206 women was demographically and clinically representative of the original trial population. Mean age at baseline was 41.9 years (SD 4.9) and 53.7 years (SD 5.1) at follow-up. Over the 10-year follow-up, 60 of 206 (29.1%) women had surgery (hysterectomy
conclusionMedical treatments for women with HMB can be successfully initiated in primary care, with low rates of surgery and improvement in quality of life observed a decade later.
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.