MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for heavy menstrual bleeding

2007· review· en· W4232291908 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Lethaby, C Augood, Kirsten Duckitt, Cindy Farquhar

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsPositive Living North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboOdds ratioCochrane LibraryClinical trialMEDLINERandomized controlled trialMenstrual bleedingMeta-analysisAdverse effectInternal medicineObstetricsAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce prostaglandin levels which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss in women of reproductive years HMB. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group trials register (searched April 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2007), EMBASE (1985 to April 2007), CINAHL (1982 to April 2007), Current Contents (1993 to April 2007) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs with either each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment induced) causes for their heavy menstrual blood loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seventeen RCTs were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and data were extracted independently. Odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data of nine trials. The results of the remaining seven crossover trials with data unsuitable for pooling and one trial with skewed data were described in the Other Data section. MAIN RESULTS: As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing heavy menstrual bleeding but less effective than either tranexamic acid, danazol or the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS). Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment. There were no statistically significant differences between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone releasing intra-uterine system (Progestasert), oral contraceptive pill (OCC)) but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo but are less effective than either tranexamic acid, danazol or LNG IUS. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, no significant difference in efficacy was demonstrated between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCC or another type of IUS, Progestasert.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0280.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations77
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207