ArticleF&S reports2025
Suppression of an accessory and cavitated uterine mass with norethindrone: a case report.
Article in F&S reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Case Report: Preoperative ultrasonographic diagnosis of accessory cavitated uterine malformation: a case series report and narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To describe conservative management for accessory and cavitated uterine mass (ACUM) with norethindrone acetate. The patient gave signed written, informed consent authorizing publication. Design: We present a case report of a patient with ACUM who desired delay in surgical management. Subjects: The patient initially presented as a 16-year-old. She reported menses starting at the age of 11 years with increasing chronic pain and severe dysmenorrhea over the past 5 years. She was started on norethindrone acetate (5 mg orally once a day). Her periods were completely suppressed on this initial dose, and her pain resolved. After 4 years of conservative management, the patient requested definitive surgical management at the age of 20 years. Main Outcome Measures: Abdominal surgery was performed 4 years after initial diagnosis after delay with norethindrone acetate. Results: Pathology from the procedure confirmed the diagnosis of ACUM. Conclusion: On the basis of this case report, for patients with severe pain and dysmenorrhea secondary to ACUM, norethindrone acetate suppression may be a viable option. Because the patient was asymptomatic with norethindrone acetate (5 mg orally once a day), there was no need to titrate the dose higher. However, if patients continue to have pain with the starting regimen, it is reasonable to titrate the dose up to the maximum dose of norethindrone acetate (15 mg orally once daily). Although the intention for this patient was to delay surgery, for patients who are poor surgical candidates or do not desire surgical management, norethindrone acetate may be a viable, long-term option.
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.