ArticleBMJ open2025
Treatment options for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: a protocol for comprehensive systematic review, network meta-analyses and health economic assessment.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Synergistic Efficacy and Safety Evaluation of Focused Ultrasound Ablation Surgery Combined with Thermal Balloon Endometrial Ablation in Treating Adenomyosis: A Prospective Controlled Study.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
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
introductionA quarter of women experience heavy periods in their lifetime, often significantly impairing their well-being, productivity and quality of life.Several treatment options are offered for heavy menstrual bleeding; however, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost of available treatments. We aim to conduct a comprehensive systematic review, network meta-analyses and health economic evaluation to compare all available treatment options while considering the views and treatment preferences of women with heavy menstrual bleeding. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) as well as the grey literature, conference proceedings and trial registries to identify all relevant randomised trials that evaluated any medical or surgical treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding regardless of their cause compared with placebo or other active treatments.We will perform pairwise and network meta-analyses using standard methods. We will report primarily on changes in menstrual blood loss (using Pictorial blood loss assessment chart scores or the Alkaline-Haematin method), quality-of-life measures, safety in addition to other important clinical outcomes.We will develop a health economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of available treatments within a healthcare perspective using data inputs from the planned meta-analyses. We will calculate the incremental cost per change in alternative outcomes and present the net monetary benefit for a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds for quality-adjusted life-year gained. We will conduct consultations and a discrete choice experiment involving patient representatives to capture the factors influencing women's decision-making and treatment preferences in real life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project was approved by the UCL Institute for Women's Health Low-Risk Research Ethics Committee (reference: 004_2023_24) and UCL Research Ethics Committee (ID 16351/003) for the planned patient involvement and qualitative research. We will produce an evidence-based decision aid toolkit and will publish the findings in peer-reviewed journals, as well as lay media outputs to inform health professionals, policymakers and the patient community. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBERS: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4MUSF, CRD42023468055, CRD42024519622, CRD42024520558 and CRD42024520634.
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.