ReviewWomen's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)2025
Controlled Clinical Studies of Combined Oral Contraceptives for Dysmenorrhea in China: A Systematic Literature Review.
Review in Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) can relieve dysmenorrhea, but utilization is low in Chinese women. This systematic literature review was conducted to summarize the design of clinical studies and the effectiveness and safety of COCs for dysmenorrhea in Chinese women. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Chinese clinical trial register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and cohort studies investigating COCs for dysmenorrhea in the Chinese population. A narrative synthesis and descriptive statistics were used to summarize the clinical study designs, intensity of dysmenorrhea symptoms, and safety of COCs for dysmenorrhea in Chinese women. Results: Twenty-eight clinical studies (24 RCTs, 2 non-RCTs, 2 cohort studies) with 3409 patients were included in this review. Primary (PD) and secondary dysmenorrhea (SD) were investigated in 9 and 18 studies, respectively, and 1 study did not specify the type. Most studies gave cyclic versus continuous COCs (92.9% [ Conclusions: COCs are effective for PD and SD in China with an acceptable safety profile. Additional head-to-head comparative trials are needed to clarify the role of COCs versus other treatments in Chinese patients.
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.