SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Efficacy and safety of hormone therapies for treating adenomyosis-associated pelvic pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists in the management of uterine adenomyosis: a narrative review.Reproduction & fertility · 2026Review
- Comparative effectiveness of hormonal therapies for preventing recurrence in endometriosis: a real-world retrospective cohort study with risk factor analysis.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Intravaginal progesterone as a fertility-sparing treatment for symptomatic adenomyosis: preliminary results from a monocentric study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Observational
- Medical Treatment for Endometriosis: One Size Does Not Fit All.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Effect of extended hormonal suppression in patients with adenomyosis undergoing embryo transfer.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To date, there are no clear guidelines available on the treatment of adenomyosis-associated pelvic pain (AAPP); however, numerous hormonal treatments (HTs) are currently being used off-label. We conducted a systematic review and network metanalysis with the aim of assessing the efficacy and safety of HTs to reduce AAPP and ranking the available options. Methods: MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE, Scielo.br, PROSPERO, Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, and international registries were searched with no time, region, or language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials that analyzed AAPP in women undergoing HTs were deemed suitable. Results: Six studies (563 women affected by adenomyosis) were included. At 3 months, women who received a placebo or a levonorgestrel-based intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) experienced more AAPP than those who received dienogest [mean difference of visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores (MD) 4.10 (95% CI 0.49 to 7.71); high evidence; MD 3.05 (95% CI 0.45 to 5.65); high evidence]. At 6 months, women who received dienogest experienced significantly less AAPP compared to those who received combined oral contraceptives [MD -2.85 (95% CI -5.30 to -0.39); moderate evidence], while the prevalence of AAPP was higher among those who received a LNG-IUS than those who received dienogest [MD 1.79 (95% CI 0.06 to 3.53); low evidence]. Conclusion: Dienogest seems to be the most effective HT for AAPP. However, although rare, it is also related to more adverse effects compared to other HTs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024535472.
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.