↓ Skip to main content

Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2006
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
155 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003855.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marjoribanks J, Lethaby A, Farquhar C, Marjoribanks, Jane, Lethaby, Anne, Farquhar, Cindy, Marjoribanks, J, Lethaby, A, Farquhar, C

Abstract

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) significantly impairs the quality of life of many otherwise healthy women. Perception of HMB is subjective and management usually depends upon what symptoms are acceptable to the individual. Medical treatment options include oral medication and a hormone-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). Surgical options include conservative surgery (uterine resection or ablation) and hysterectomy. To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of surgery versus medical therapy for HMB. In September 2005 we searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE EMBASE, Current Contents, Biological Abstracts, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched reference lists of articles retrieved and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field. Controlled randomised trials comparing conservative surgery or hysterectomy versus medical therapy (oral or intrauterine) for HMB DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trials for quality and extracted data . The eight included trials randomised 821 women. In comparisons of oral medication versus surgery, 58% of women randomised to medical treatment had received surgery by two years. Compared to oral medication, endometrial resection was significantly more effective in controlling bleeding (at four months: OR 10.62, 95% CI 5.30 to 21.27) and significantly less likely to cause side effects (at four months: OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.31) and hysterectomy resulted in significantly greater improvements in mental health (at six months p = 0.04). In comparisons of LNG-IUS versus conservative surgery or hysterectomy, at one year there was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction rates or quality of life, though adverse effects were significantly less likely with conservative surgery (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.49). Two trials found conservative surgery significantly more effective than LNG-IUS in controlling bleeding at one year (OR 3.99, 95% CI 1.53 to 10.38). Two other small trials with longer follow-up found no difference or favoured LNG-IUS - however in both these studies the data were skewed and fewer than two thirds of participants were analysed. Hysterectomy stopped all bleeding but caused serious complications for some women. Surgery, especially hysterectomy, reduces menstrual bleeding at one year more than medical treatments but LNG-IUS appears equally effective in improving quality of life. The evidence for longer term comparisons is weak and inconsistent. Oral medication suits a minority of women long term.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 77 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 18 23%