↓ Skip to main content

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for dysmenorrhoea

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
279 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
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for dysmenorrhoea
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001751.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Marjoribanks, Reuben Olugbenga Ayeleke, Cindy Farquhar, Michelle Proctor

Abstract

Dysmenorrhoea is a common gynaecological problem consisting of painful cramps accompanying menstruation, which in the absence of any underlying abnormality is known as primary dysmenorrhoea. Research has shown that women with dysmenorrhoea have high levels of prostaglandins, hormones known to cause cramping abdominal pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are drugs that act by blocking prostaglandin production. They inhibit the action of cyclooxygenase (COX), an enzyme responsible for the formation of prostaglandins. The COX enzyme exists in two forms, COX-1 and COX-2. Traditional NSAIDs are considered 'non-selective' because they inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes. More selective NSAIDs that solely target COX-2 enzymes (COX-2-specific inhibitors) were launched in 1999 with the aim of reducing side effects commonly reported in association with NSAIDs, such as indigestion, headaches and drowsiness. To determine the effectiveness and safety of NSAIDs in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea. We searched the following databases in January 2015: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, November 2014 issue), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP). We checked the abstracts of major scientific meetings and the reference lists of relevant articles. All randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparisons of NSAIDs versus placebo, other NSAIDs or paracetamol, when used to treat primary dysmenorrhoea. Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data, calculating odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used inverse variance methods to combine data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. We included 80 randomised controlled trials (5820 women). They compared 20 different NSAIDs (18 non-selective and two COX-2-specific) versus placebo, paracetamol or each other. NSAIDs versus placeboAmong women with primary dysmenorrhoea, NSAIDs were more effective for pain relief than placebo (OR 4.37, 95% CI 3.76 to 5.09; 35 RCTs, I(2) = 53%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if 18% of women taking placebo achieve moderate or excellent pain relief, between 45% and 53% taking NSAIDs will do so.However, NSAIDs were associated with more adverse effects (overall adverse effects: OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.51, 25 RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence; gastrointestinal adverse effects: OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.23, 14 RCTs, I(2) = 30%; neurological adverse effects: OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.53, seven RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if 10% of women taking placebo experience side effects, between 11% and 14% of women taking NSAIDs will do so. NSAIDs versus other NSAIDsWhen NSAIDs were compared with each other there was little evidence of the superiority of any individual NSAID for either pain relief or safety. However, the available evidence had little power to detect such differences, as most individual comparisons were based on very few small trials. Non-selective NSAIDs versus COX-2-specific selectorsOnly two of the included studies utilised COX-2-specific inhibitors (etoricoxib and celecoxib). There was no evidence that COX-2-specific inhibitors were more effective or tolerable for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea than traditional NSAIDs; however data were very scanty. NSAIDs versus paracetamolNSAIDs appeared to be more effective for pain relief than paracetamol (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.43, three RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference with regard to adverse effects, though data were very scanty.Most of the studies were commercially funded (59%); a further 31% failed to state their source of funding. NSAIDs appear to be a very effective treatment for dysmenorrhoea, though women using them need to be aware of the substantial risk of adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine which (if any) individual NSAID is the safest and most effective for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea. We rated the quality of the evidence as low for most comparisons, mainly due to poor reporting of study methods.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 tweeters 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 279 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 273 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 73 26%
Student > Master 49 18%
Researcher 33 12%
Unspecified 23 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 8%
Other 79 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 142 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 14%
Unspecified 33 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 4%
Other 42 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 104. 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 11 July 2019.
All research outputs
#147,321
of 13,243,449 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#332
of 10,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,088
of 233,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,243,449 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 233,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.