CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 199Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementMenstrual Health and Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Oral contraceptives for pain associated with endometriosis

Open access
Brown, Julie, Crawford, Tineke J, Datta, Shree, Prentice, Andrew·2018·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001019.pub3PMC PMC6494634
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition which affects many women of reproductive age worldwide and is a major cause of pain and infertility. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is widely used to treat pain occurring as a result of endometriosis, although the evidence for its efficacy is limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral contraceptive preparations in the treatment of painful symptoms ascribed to the diagnosis of laparoscopically proven endometriosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following from inception to 19 October 2017: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We also handsearched reference lists of relevant trials and systematic reviews retrieved by the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) of the use of COCPs in the treatment of women of reproductive age with symptoms ascribed to the diagnosis of endometriosis that had been made visually at a surgical procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. One review author was an expert in the content matter. We contacted study authors for additional information. The primary outcome was self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials (612 women) met the inclusion criteria. Only three trials (404 women) provided data that were suitable for analysis.Combined oral contraceptive pill versus placeboTwo trials compared COCP with a placebo. These studies were at high risk of bias. For GRADE outcomes (self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment), the quality of the evidence very low. Evidence was downgraded for imprecision as it was based on a single, small trial and for the visual analogue scale data there were wide confidence intervals (CIs). There appeared to have been substantial involvement of the pharmaceutical company funding the trials.Treatment with the COCP was associated with an improvement in self-reported pain at the end of treatment as evidenced by a lower score on the Dysmenorrhoea verbal rating scale (scale 0 to 3) compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -1.30 points, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.76; 1 RCT, 96 women; very low quality evidence), a lower score on the Dysmenorrhoea visual analogue scale (no details of scale) compared with placebo (MD -23.68 points, 95% CI -28.75 to -18.62, 2 RCTs, 327 women; very low quality evidence) and a reduction in menstrual pain from baseline to the end of treatment (MD 2.10 points, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.82; 1 RCT, 169 women; very low quality evidence).Combined oral contraceptive pill versus medical therapiesOne underpowered trial compared the COCP with another medical treatment (goserelin). The study was at high risk of bias; the trial was unblinded and there was insufficient detail to judge allocation concealment and randomisation. For GRADE outcomes (self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment), the quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low.At the end of treatment, the women in the goserelin group were amenorrhoeic and therefore no comparisons could be made between the groups for the primary outcome. At six months' follow-up, there was no clear evidence of a difference between women treated with the COCP and women treated with goserelin for measures of dysmenorrhoea on a visual analogue scale (scale 1 to 10) (MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.08; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence) or a verbal rating scale (scale 0 to 3) (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.79; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence). At six months' follow-up, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the COCP and goserelin groups for reporting complete absence of pain as measured by the visual analogue scale (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.43; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence) or the verbal rating scale (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 1 RCT, 49 women; low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited evidence from two trials at high risk of bias and limited data for the prespecified outcomes for this review, there is insufficient evidence to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the COCP compared with placebo and the findings cannot be generalised.Based on the limited evidence from one small trial that was at high risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the COCP compared with other medical treatments. Only one comparison was possible, with the medical intervention being goserelin, and the findings cannot be generalised.Further research is needed to fully evaluate the role of COCPs

Overview

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.cd001019.pub3

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

3 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Ali, 2013, Continuous oral contraception and leuprolide in the treatment of endometriosis associated pelvic pain, Journal of Endometriosis, 5 (Suppl 1)
  2. Ali, 2013, Continuous oral contraception and leuprolide in the treatment of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain, European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, 18 (Suppl 1), S257
  3. Kitawaki, 2012, Long-term suppression of endometriosis associated pelvic pain with sequential administration of a gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist followed by danazol, oral contraceptives or dienogest, Journal of Endometriosis, 4, 150
  4. Moawad, 2012, Is continuous use of long term OCP's more significant than cyclic use in prevention of endometrioma recurrence after laparoscopic excision? A randomized controlled trial, Human Reproduction, 27, ii66

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 199

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Brown, J., Crawford, T. J., Datta, S., & Prentice, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
ORCID
Brown, Julie
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-05-22
Volume
2018
Issue
5
Pages
CD001019-CD001019
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd001019.pub3
PMC
PMC6494634
OpenAlex
W1549301275
Cited by
199
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6
FWCI
2.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Menstrual Health and Disorders
Keywords
endometriosis, combined oral contraceptives, dysmenorrhea, endometriosis-associated pain, treatment effectiveness, treatment safety, cost-effectiveness, placebo comparison, women of reproductive age, infertility, visual analogue scale, self-reported pain
MeSH terms
Contraceptives, Oral, Dysmenorrhea, Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Goserelin, Pelvic 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