Cited by 176Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementReproductive Health and Contraception

Oral contraceptives and risk of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Vercellini, P., Eskenazi, B., Consonni, D., Somigliana, E., Parazzini, F., Abbiati, A., Fedele, L.·2011·Human Reproduction Update

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Combined oral contraceptives (OCs) inhibit ovulation, substantially reduce the volume of menstrual flow and may hypothetically interfere with implantation of refluxed endometrial cells. The aim of this review is to establish if OC use influences the risk of endometriosis. METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search to identify all studies published in the last four decades (January 1970 to January 2010) in the English language on the relationship between OC exposure and risk of endometriosis. Two authors abstracted data on standardized forms. RESULTS: We identified 608 potentially relevant studies and 18 studies (6 cross-sectional, 7 case-control and 5 cohort) were selected. Pooling of the results derived from all the included reports independently from study design, yielded a common relative risk of 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-0.85] for current OC users, 1.21 (95% CI, 0.94-1.56) for past users and 1.19 (95% CI, 0.89-1.60) for ever users. Methodological drawbacks, such as uncertain temporal relationship between exposure and outcome in cross-sectional studies and suboptimal selection of controls in case-control studies, limit the quality of the available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of endometriosis appears reduced during OC use. However, it is not possible to exclude the possibility that the apparent protective effect of OC against endometriosis is the result of postponement of surgical evaluation due to temporary suppression of pain symptoms. Confounding by selection and indication biases may explain the trend towards an increase in risk of endometriosis observed after discontinuation, but further clarification is needed. To date, the hypothesis of recommending OCs for primary prevention of endometriosis does not seem sufficiently substantiated.

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 · 10.1093/humupd/dmq042

Cites

55 of 55 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

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?

  • The usefulness of hormonal contraceptives for the primary prevention of endometriosis is uncertain.

    “The usefulness of hormonal contraceptives for the primary prevention of endometriosis is uncertain (Vercellini et al., 2011).”

    From ESHRE guideline: endometriosis (2022) · cites this paper as Vercellini et al., 2011

    The Discussion (p. 10) says the evidence is not yet clear enough to suggest oral contraceptives for primary prevention of endometriosis, and the conclusions (p. 1) call that recommendation insufficiently substantiated. The citing sentence broadens this finding from oral contraceptives to hormonal contraceptives generally, which the paper does not assess. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Past users of COCs have an increased risk of endometriosis.

    “Studies also showed an increased risk of endometriosis in past users of COCs [251].”
  • An increased risk of endometriosis was observed in past users of OCPs.

    “an increased risk of the disease was observed in past users of OCPs [72,73]”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Anonimous. Oral contraceptives and endometriosis. Contracept Report 1997; 8 :12-13.
  2. Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283 :2008-2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vercellini, P., Eskenazi, B., Consonni, D., Somigliana, E., Parazzini, F., Abbiati, A., & Fedele, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Milan (IT)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico (IT)
Corresponding author
Vercellini, P.
Venue
Human Reproduction Update
Published
2010-09-10
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
159-170
ISSN
  • 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2369
OpenAlex
W2098330734
Cited by
176
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction Update (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
oral contraceptives, endometriosis, combined oral contraceptives, endometriosis risk, ovulation inhibition, endometrial implantation, primary prevention, selection bias, confounding by indication
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Contraceptives, Oral, Cross-Sectional Studies, Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Cohort Studies, Case-Control Studies, Risk Assessment

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