ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of oral pharmacological and complementary interventions for premenstrual syndrome: a protocol for a systematic review and a network meta-analysis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPremenstrual syndrome (PMS) affects around 48% of women of reproductive age worldwide, interfering with psychological and physical well-being as well as functioning. A multitude of interventions exists for PMS, including oral pharmacological interventions, such as antidepressants, combined oral contraceptives, or alternative and complementary interventions. While the use of pharmacological interventions for PMS is linked to multiple side effects, evidence is limited for complementary interventions. Further, placebo effects are high in PMS intervention studies, affecting the estimation of the true treatment effect. An analysis of the relative efficacy between different treatment options is currently lacking, yet urgently needed for clinical decision-making.
methodsWe plan a network meta-analysis to compare the relative efficacy and safety of oral pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for PMS, including all available randomized controlled trials, such as comparator or placebo-controlled trials. Primary outcomes will be symptom intensity and interference; secondary outcomes will be psychological and somatic symptom intensity. Safety will be assessed by the proportion of patients reporting treatment-related adverse events, unwanted events, and by dropouts due to side effects. Published trials will be retrieved from online electronic databases. At least two independent reviewers will screen, select references, and extract data independently. Risk of Bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment 2 (RoB2) tool. We will conduct a random-effect network meta-analysis within a frequentist framework for each outcome to synthesize all available evidence and compare and rank available oral treatments. DISCUSSION: Several interventions are available for PMS, a disabling condition that affects a large proportion of women worldwide. To our knowledge, this will be the first network meta-analysis to synthesize the existing evidence of oral PMS interventions systematically. Comparing the efficacy and safety of all available interventions is necessary to inform clinicians, patients and clinical guidelines to elect the best treatment regimen. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020214716.
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.