Cited by 116Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementMenstrual Health and Disorders

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues for pain associated with endometriosis

Prentice, A, Deary, AJ, Goldbeck-Wood, S, Farquhar, C, Smith, SK·1999·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition that frequently presents with the symptom of pain. The precise pathogenesis (mode of development) of endometriosis is unclear but it is evident that endometriosis arises by the dissemination of endometrium to ectopic sites and the subsequent establishment of deposits of ectopic endometrium. The observation that endometriosis is rarely seen in the hypo-oestrogenic (low levels of oestrogen) post-menopausal woman led to the concept of medical treatment by induction of a pseudo-menopause using Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone Analogues (GnRHas). When administered in a non-pulsatile manner (the pituitary is normally stimulated by pulses of natural GnRH and all analogues act on the pituitary at a constant level) their use results in down regulation (switching off) of the pituitary and a hypogonadotrophic hypogonadal state (low levels of female hormones due to non stimulation of the ovary). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of the painful symptoms of endometriosis by comparing them with no treatment, placebo, other recognised medical treatments, and surgical interventions. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search strategy of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility review group (please see Review Group details) was used to identify all randomised trials of the use of GnRHas for the treatment of the painful symptoms of endometriosis. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were included if they were randomised, and considered the effectiveness of GnRHas in the treatment of the painful symptoms of endometriosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Twenty-six studies had data appropriate for inclusion in the review. The largest group (15 studies) compared GnRHas with danazol. There are 5 studies comparing GnRHas with GnRHas plus add-back therapy, 3 comparing GnRHa with GnRHa in a different form or dose, one compares them with gestrinone, one with the combined oral contraceptive pill, and one with placebo. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers. The authors of 11 studies have been contacted to clarify missing or unclear data. Only 4 have replied to date. Data on relief of pain, change in revised American Fertility Society (rAFS) scores, and side effects was collected. MAIN RESULTS: No difference was found between GnRHas and any of the other active comparators with respect to pain relief or reduction in endometriotic deposits. The side effect profiles of the different treatments were different, with danazol and gestrinone having more androgenic side effects, while GnRHas tend to produce more hypo-oestrogenic symptoms. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is little or no difference in the effectiveness of GnRHas in comparison with other medical treatments for endometriosis. GnRHas do appear to be an effective treatment. Differences that do exist relate to side effect profiles. Side effects of GnRHas can be ameliorated by the addition of addback therapy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd000346This paper is marked retracted.

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 135 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prentice, A., Deary, A., Goldbeck-Wood, S., Farquhar, C., & Smith, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Addenbrooke's Hospital (GB)
  • Ipswich Hospital (AU)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
1999-04-26
Issue
2
Pages
CD000346-CD000346
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2140527751
Cited by
116
References
135
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Status
Retracted
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Menstrual Health and Disorders
Keywords
endometriosis, GnRH analogues, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, analgesia, danazol, add-back therapy, gestrinone, combined oral contraceptives, hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, treatment side effects, surgical treatment comparison, hormone replacement therapy
MeSH terms
Danazol, Endometriosis, Female, Fertility Agents, Female, Gestrinone, Humans, Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone, Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review