Medical management of endometriosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While laparoscopic surgery plays a key role in the management of endometriosis, symptoms commonly recur, and repeat surgery comes with increased risk. Medical management, including hormonal and nonhormonal treatment, is vital in managing painful symptoms. This review summarizes recent evidence regarding various medical management options available to treat pelvic pain associated with endometriosis. RECENT FINDINGS: Efficacy of dienogest vs. combined oral contraceptive on pain associated with endometriosis: randomized clinical trial.Once daily oral relugolix combination therapy vs. placebo in patients with endometriosis-associated pain: two replicate phase 3, randomised, double-blind, studies (SPIRIT 1 and 2).A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of the comparative effects of dienogest and the combined oral contraceptive pill in women with endometriosis.Two-year efficacy and safety of relugolix combination therapy in women with endometriosis-associated pain: SPIRIT open-label extension study. SUMMARY: All symptomatic women with suspected endometriosis who are not desiring immediate fertility can be offered suppressive treatment to control symptoms and slow the progression of disease. First-line treatments include the combined oral contraceptive pill and progestogens. Second-line treatments include gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists but current guidelines recommend that these should be reserved for people whose symptoms fail to be controlled by first-line agents. The use of complementary and alternative medicines is also increasing in both volume and number of agents used.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".