Progestogens versus oestrogens and progestogens for irregular uterine bleeding associated with anovulation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) is excessively heavy, prolonged or frequent bleeding of uterine origin which is not due to pregnancy or to recognisable pelvic or systemic disease. Anovulation may be inferred from a number of observations but, in the normal clinical situation, anovulation is often assumed when a woman presents with heavy, prolonged or frequent bleeding, particularly in those who are at the extremes of reproductive life and in women known to have polycystic ovarian syndrome. Menstrual bleeding that is irregular or excessive is poorly tolerated by the majority of women. Changes in the length of the menstrual cycle generally imply disturbances of the hypothalamo-pituitary-ovarian (HPO) axis. In anovulatory DUB with acyclic (irregular) oestrogen production there will be no progesterone withdrawal from oestrogen primed endometrium and so cycles are irregular. Prolonged oestrogen stimulation may cause a build up of endometrium with erratic bleeding as it breaks down and is expelled. This is the rationale for using cyclical progestogens during the second half of the menstrual cycle, in order to provoke a regular withdrawal bleed. Continuous progestogen is intended to induce endometrial atrophy and hence to prevent oestrogen-stimulated endometrial proliferation. Progestogens, and oestrogens and progestogens in combination are already widely used in the management of irregular or excessive bleeding due to DUB but the regime, dose and type of progestogen used varies widely, with little consensus about the optimum treatment approach. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and acceptability of progestogens alone and oestrogens and progestogens in combination in the management of irregular bleeding associated with anovulation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched 4 May 2007), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2007), EMBASE (1985 to May 2007), CINAHL (1982 to May 2007), Biological Abstracts (1969 to May 2007), Current Contents (1980 to 2007) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of progestogens (via any route) alone or in combination with oestrogens in the treatment of irregular bleeding associated with anovulation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study quality assessment and data extraction were carried out independently by two review authors. Both authors were experts in the content matter. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised trials were identified which compared progestogens with oestrogens and progestogens or with placebo in the management of irregular bleeding associated with anovulation. Only one small, non-randomised study compared two progestogen regimes in the management of heavy and irregular bleeding in women with confirmed anovulation. One randomised study compared the effects of two progestogens on endometrial histology in women with a variety of menstrual symptoms, half of whom had cystic glandular hyperplasia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of randomised studies relating to the use of progestogens and of oestrogens and progestogens in combination in the treatment of irregular bleeding associated with anovulation. Further research is needed to establish the role of these treatments in the management of this common gynaecological problem.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».