ReviewCureus2025
Ormeloxifene Versus Norethisterone for Anovulatory Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: An India-Based Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
Abnormal uterine bleeding due to ovulatory dysfunction (AUB-O) is a frequent gynecological problem affecting women of reproductive and perimenopausal age. While norethisterone, a synthetic progestogen, has been widely used for medical management, ormeloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, has recently emerged as a promising alternative. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of ormeloxifene versus norethisterone in the treatment of AUB-O. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024514294). A comprehensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed up to 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and prospective comparative studies evaluating ormeloxifene against norethisterone in women with AUB-O. Outcomes assessed were hemoglobin improvement, reduction in endometrial thickness, and change in Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC) score. Data were extracted independently by two authors and analyzed using RevMan 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) with a random-effects model. Five studies comprising 661 women were included (331 received ormeloxifene; 330 received norethisterone). Ormeloxifene significantly improved hemoglobin levels compared with norethisterone (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.81 g/dL, 95% CI 0.14-1.47; p < 0.00001; I² = 93%). It was also superior in reducing endometrial thickness (SMD = -0.74 mm, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.01; p < 0.00001; I² = 91%) and lowering PBAC scores (SMD = -1.06, 95% CI -1.25 to -0.87; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%). This meta-analysis suggests that ormeloxifene is more effective than norethisterone in improving clinical outcomes of AUB-O, with better control of menstrual blood loss, hemoglobin levels, and endometrial thickness. Larger, high-quality multicenter trials with longer follow-up are warranted to confirm long-term safety and efficacy.
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.