ReviewArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Evaluating the landscape and characteristics of endometriosis research published between 1990 and 2024.
Review in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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
purposeWe aimed to assess the landscape of endometriosis randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) between 1990 and 2024 by characterising RCTs by management type, primary outcome, country of origin, trial registration, sample size and minimum detectable difference based upon standard RCT power targets of 80% and 90%.
methodsWe identified all endometriosis RCTs from Dimensions.AI with an English abstract. Articles were examined for sample size, theme and primary outcome. Sample sizes were used to calculate minimum detectable effect size (MDES) of studies at 80% and 90% power.
resultsWe analysed 536 RCTs using 'R'. 55.6% (N = 298) of studies investigated medical management of endometriosis, of which 177 investigated Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone (GnRH) analogues. RCTs investigating complementary therapies rose from 0.847% (N = 1) in 1990-1999 to 28.7% (N = 31) of medical management RCTs in 2020-2024. The US and China led publishing with 70 and 65 RCTs total, respectively. Importantly, of 445 RCTs with at least one continuous outcome, we found that at 90% power, 55.7% (N = 248) of RCTs would only detect a standardised mean difference which was 'large' or greater.
conclusionWe noted several trends within endometriosis RCTs. In line with wider literature, China accounts for a growing proportion of RCTs. Although complementary therapy is increasingly recognised as a management option requiring further research, most medical management RCTs focussed on GnRH analogues as part of their treatment regime despite these being considered second-line management options. A high proportion of RCTs was underpowered to detect potentially clinically significant effects of intervention-potentially indicating significant resource wastage.
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.