↓ Skip to main content

Non-surgical interventions for treating heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) in women with bleeding disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Non-surgical interventions for treating heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) in women with bleeding disorders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010338.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sujoy Ray, Amita Ray

Abstract

Heavy menstrual bleeding without an organic lesion is mainly due to an imbalance of the various hormones which have a regulatory effect on the menstrual cycle. Another cause of heavy menstrual bleeding with no pelvic pathology, is the presence of an acquired or inherited bleeding disorder. The haemostatic system has a central role in controlling the amount and the duration of menstrual bleeding, thus abnormally prolonged or profuse bleeding does occur in most women affected by bleeding disorders. Whereas irregular, pre-menarchal or post-menopausal uterine bleeding is unusual in inherited or acquired haemorrhagic disorders, severe acute bleeding and heavy menstrual bleeding at menarche and chronic heavy menstrual bleeding during the entire reproductive life are common. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. To determine the efficacy and safety of non-surgical interventions versus each other, placebo or no treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss in women with bleeding disorders. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (25 August 2016), Embase (May 2013), LILACS (February 2013) and the WHO International Clinical Trial registry (February 2013). Randomised controlled studies of non-surgical interventions for treating heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) in women of reproductive age suffering from a congenital or acquired bleeding disorder. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Three cross-over studies, with 175 women were included in the review. All three studies had an unclear risk of bias with regards to trial design and overall, the quality of evidence generated was judged to be poor.Two of the studies (n = 59) compared desmopressin (1-deamino-8-D-arginine vasopressin) with placebo. Menstrual blood loss was the primary outcome for both of these studies. Neither study found clear evidence of a difference between groups. The first of these reported a mean difference in menstrual blood loss in the desmopressin versus placebo group of 21.20 mL (95% confidence interval -19.00 to 61.50)The second study reported that even though there was an improvement of pictorial bleeding assessment chart scores with desmopressin and placebo when compared to pretreatment assessment, there was no clear evidence of difference in these scores when the two were compared to each other (results presented graphically, P = 0.51). The data from these studies could not be combined.The third study (n = 116) compared desmopressin with tranexamic acid (n = 116). This study found a decrease in pictorial bleeding assessment chart scores after both treatments as compared to baseline. The decrease in these scores was greater for tranexamic acid than for desmopressin, with a mean difference of 41.6 mL (95% confidence interval 19.6 to 63) (P < 0.0002).In relation to adverse events, across two studies, there was no clear evidence of a difference when placebo was compared to desmopressin, risk ratio 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 3.34) . The same was also true when desmopressin was compared to tranexamic acid, risk ratio 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 3.34).Only the study that compared desmopressin to tranexamic acid assessed quality of life. However, we are unable to present any data from this study, since no differences in this outcome between the two intervention groups were reported. Evidence from randomised controlled studies on the effect of desmopressin when compared to placebo in reducing menstrual blood loss is very limited and inconclusive. Two studies, each with a very limited number of participants, have shown uncertain effects in menstrual blood loss and adverse effects. A non-randomised comparison in one of the studies points to the value of combining desmopressin and tranexamic acid, which needs to be tested in a formal randomised controlled study comparison.When tranexamic acid was compared to desmopressin, a single study showed a reduction in menstrual blood loss with tranexamic acid use compared to desmopressin.There is a need to evaluate non-surgical methods for treating of menorrhagia in women with bleeding disorders through randomised controlled studies. Such methods would be more acceptable than surgery for women wishing to retain their fertility. Given that women may need to use these treatments throughout their entire reproductive life, long-term side-effects should be evaluated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 27 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2017.
All research outputs
#11,143,478
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,923
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,395
of 340,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#191
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.