Does Nomegestrol Acetate Plus 17β-Estradiol Oral Contraceptive Improve Endometriosis-Associated Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the effects of a 24/4 regimen combined oral contraceptive (COC) containing 1.5 mg 17β-estradiol (E2) and 2.5 mg nomegestrol acetate (NOMAC) compared to on-demand nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on women affected by endometriosis-associated chronic pelvic pain (the primary end point) and their quality of life (QoL) and sexual function (the secondary end points). Materials and Methods: Ninety-nine women on E2/NOMAC constituted the study group; and 63 women on NSAIDs constituted the control group. The visual analogic scale was used to measure the levels of pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia. To assess their QoL, sexual function, and sexual distress, the Short Form-36 (SF-36), the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), and the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS) were used, respectively. The study included two follow-ups at 3 and 6 months. Results: Improvement in chronic pelvic pain was observed in the study group at both the 3- and 6-month follow-ups ( p < 0.001). SF-36, FSFI, and FSDS had a similar trend at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups ( p < 0.001). Women on NSAIDs did not report any reduction in pain symptoms or improvement in QoL ( p ≤ 0.4). However, they had a limited improvement of their FSFI and FSDS ( p < 0.001). The improvement of the pain symptoms, QoL, FSFI, and FSDS, was more evident in women on E2/NOMAC than in those on NSAIDs, when the study group and control group values were compared at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Women on E2/NOMAC COC showed a better reduction of endometriosis-associated chronic pelvic pain and an improvement of their QoL and sexual activity than those of the women on NSAIDs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".