SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026
Impact of combined oral contraceptives and progestin-only pills on psychological and sexual well-being of women with endometriosis: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 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.
- Medical Treatment for Endometriosis: One Size Does Not Fit All.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWomen with endometriosis frequently experience psychological and sexual concerns. Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and progestin-only pills (POPs) represent first-line treatments for the disease, yet their potential negative impact on mood and sexuality remains debated. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus up to August 1st, 2025, to assess whether COCs or POPs adversely affect psychological well-being or sexual function in this population. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies comparing COCs or POPs with no treatment in women with endometriosis. Outcomes of interest were adverse event rates and patient-reported measures of mood and sexual health. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I. Given heterogeneity in outcome measures, we applied vote counting by direction of effect and harvest plots, with confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using the Wilson method, in line with Cochrane guidance. The study protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD420250656420).
resultsOf 1424 records screened, seven studies (four RCTs, three observational) met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was low in RCTs and moderate-to-serious in observational studies. Six of seven (pooled proportion: 86%; 95% CI: 49%-97%) reported no increased risk of psychological dysfunction in users. None reported increased sexual dysfunction (100%; 95% CI: 65%-100%). Most studies reported significant pain reduction with treatment. Six studies specifically reported on dyspareunia, all of which showed a benefit of treatment over placebo (100%; 95% CI: 61%-100%). No discontinuations for psychological or sexual adverse events were observed when pain remission was achieved. DISCUSSION: Despite the small number of studies, variability in measurement tools, and short follow-up (mean 6 months), the evidence suggests that COCs and POPs are generally well tolerated regarding psychological and sexual health, supporting their continued use for long-term management provided pain remission is achieved.
conclusionsIn women with endometriosis, current evidence does not support a consistent increase in negative psychological or sexual outcomes among COCs or POPs users compared with non-users.
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.