MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain in women with endometriosis

2009· reference-entry· en· W4255996882 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Allen, Sally Hopewell, Andrew Prentice, Daisy Gregory

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2009
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndometriosisPlaceboOdds ratioCochrane LibraryMEDLINERandomized controlled trialPelvic painMeta-analysisInternal medicineGynecologyPhysical therapyAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition that affects women and can lead to painful symptoms and infertility. It greatly affects women's quality of life, impacting on their careers, everyday activities, sexual and non-sexual relationships, and fertility. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most commonly used first-line treatment for endometriosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of NSAIDs used for the management of pain in women with endometriosis compared to placebo, other NSAIDs, other pain management drugs, or no treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (April 2008) published in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2008), EMBASE (1980 to April 2008), and the reference lists from relevant publications. Experts in the field were also contacted for information about possible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) describing the use of NSAIDs in the treatment of endometriosis in women of all ages. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (CA and SH) independently read and extracted data from each of the included studies. Crossover trials were analysed using the inverse variance method in RevMan to calculate the odds ratio for binary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials were identified but only one trial, with 24 women, was included in the analysis. Comparing NSAIDs (naproxen) to placebo, there was no evidence of a positive effect on pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 3.27, 95% CI 0.61 to 17.69) in women with endometriosis. There was also inconclusive evidence to indicate whether women taking NSAIDs (naproxen) were less likely to require additional analgesia (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.29) or to experience side effects (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.47) when compared to placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is inconclusive evidence to show whether or not NSAIDs (naproxen) are effective in managing pain caused by endometriosis. There is no evidence on whether any individual NSAID is more effective than another. As shown in other Cochrane reviews, women using NSAIDs need to be aware of the possibility that these drugs may cause unintended effects.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations62
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207