ReviewClinics and practice2026
Case-Based Perspectives on the Management of Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause.
Review in Clinics and practice, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesGenitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), previously known as vulvovaginal atrophy, is a chronic, progressive hypoestrogenic condition affecting vulvovaginal, urinary and sexual health in women. Common symptoms include vaginal dryness, itching, dyspareunia, urinary urgency and recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs). Despite the high prevalence, GSM is underdiagnosed and undertreated, thereby negatively impacting women's quality of life. To illustrate the practical aspects of GSM diagnosis and provide evidence-based management, we present a case-based narrative review synthesizing recently published, high-quality evidence. MATERIALS AND
methodsEvidence was drawn from multiple sources through targeted searches of databases, and included the 2025 AUA/SUFU/AUGS guideline (AUA), the 2024 NICE network meta-analyses (NICE), a 2025 systematic review/meta-analysis in breast-cancer survivors, the 2020 Menopause Society GSM Position Statement, the 2018 NAMS/ISSWSH breast cancer consensus, several primary source citations and other high quality peer-reviewed publications.
resultsFive illustrative composite case vignettes of GSM are presented to highlight the evaluation strategy and evidence-supported treatment choices. Nonhormonal options are the first line treatments for mild GSM symptoms, either with or without the addition of vaginal estrogen therapy. For moderate to severe GSM, low-dose vaginal estrogen, vaginal DHEA, and ospemifene are all effective FDA-approved options. In breast cancer survivors, individualized decisions with oncology input are warranted. Maximal caution and a shared decision-making approach is required for women using Aromatase Inhibitors (AIs) for breast cancer risk reduction when choosing treatments for GSM.
conclusionsTreating GSM improves vaginal, sexual and urinary outcomes and quality of life of women. Clinicians need to proactively screen for GSM and offer evidence-based treatment options. The treatment decisions in breast cancer survivors are nuanced, requiring a shared-decision approach.
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.