ArticleTranslational pediatrics2025
Efficacy and safety of different doses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues in the treatment of precocious puberty in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Translational pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of combined gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue and growth hormone therapy in girls with central precocious puberty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Precocious puberty comprises a group of disorders characterized by abnormal pubertal development that significantly impacts children's physical and mental health. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRHa) is the standard treatment; however, the efficacy and safety of different dosages remain uncertain. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of various GnRHa doses for preventing and treating precocious puberty in children. Methods: Relevant studies published up to September 2024 were searched across seven electronic databases. Literature that met the inclusion criteria was reviewed to compare the effects of low-dose versus high-dose GnRHa on bone age, predicted adult height (PAH), bone metabolism indices, sex hormone levels, and safety in children with precocious puberty. The risk of bias for the included studies was assessed in accordance with the guidelines for bias assessment provided in the Cochrane Handbook. And data were quantitatively analyzed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Thirteen studies involving 686 children were included in this analysis. The overall quality of the included studies was moderate. Meta-analysis indicated no significant differences between low-dose and high-dose GnRHa regarding changes in bone age [mean difference (MD) =0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.00 to 0.16, P=0.06], predicting adult heights (PAH) (MD =-0.14, 95% CI: -1.23 to 0.96, P=0.06). However, the low-dose group showed a more significant effect on luteinizing hormone (LH) (MD =0.10, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.18, P=0.009), while the high-dose group had a more pronounced impact on P1NP (MD =-36.03, 95% CI: -57.63 to -14.43, P=0.001). Additionally, adverse reaction rates were significantly lower in the low-dose group (odds ratio =0.21, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.33, P<0.001) compared to the high-dose group. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that low-dose GnRHa is as effective as higher doses for treating precocious puberty in children and presents a better safety profile. These findings provide evidence-based guidance for selecting GnRHa dosages in clinical applications for managing childhood precocious puberty.
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.