ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2026
How We Can Optimize Dysmenorrhea Treatment: Real-World Results from a Cross-Sectional, Multi-Center Study.
Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Dysmenorrhea is a common and disabling condition in women. We investigate the prevalence of endocrine dysmenorrhea treatment (EDT) and the use of pain medication in dysmenorrhea patients without surgically treated endometriosis (no-STE). Material and Methods: Patients were recruited for a cross-sectional multicenter study from two German university hospital endometriosis centers. Additional participants were enrolled with support of the German Endometriosis Association. A total of 821 premenopausal women with dysmenorrhea were examined. 266 had no STE, 42 of whom underwent surgery. Results: The study aimed to assess real-world treatment patterns for dysmenorrhea in women without surgically treated endometriosis. Only 35.7% of the no-STE patients (n = 95) were currently receiving EDT and 241 (90.6%) were taking pain medication for dysmenorrhea. Menstrual pain remained high even under pain medication (5.06 [95% CI 4.58-5.55] visual analogue scale [VAS] vs. 4.63 [95% CI 4.29-4.98] in patients with and without EDT; F = 2.073 p > 0.05). 149 (87.1%) of the patients who did not take EDT also did not undergo surgery for diagnosis and treatment of dysmenorrhea. Combined oral contraceptives as EDT were utilized cyclically by 14 (14.7% of EDT users) and in an extended/continuous use by 27 patients (28.4% of EDT users). Long term intake of progestin only preparations was utilized by 38 patients (40% of EDT users). The reasons for refusing EDT were analyzed in detail. Conclusion: Many patients refuse to undergo long-term EDT. The reasons for refusal are often not in line with current guidelines. Clinicians should better inform their patients about the advantages and disadvantages of EDT and surgery in the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis related symptoms.
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.