SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
Dienogest vs. combined oral contraceptive: A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and side effects to inform evidence-based guidelines.
Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Dienogest vs. combined oral contraceptive: A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and side effects to inform evidence-based guidelines.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- Medical Treatment for Endometriosis: One Size Does Not Fit All.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDienogest is a synthetic fourth-generation progestin that has been approved for the medical treatment of endometriosis, and its efficacy on pain symptoms and quality of life is well established even in the long term. Nowadays, only a few controlled trials evaluating the safety of dienogest compared with other hormonal therapies have been published. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare efficacy and tolerability data between dienogest and combined oral contraceptives (COC) in patients taking hormonal therapy for endometriosis treatment in order to inform evidence-based guidelines. MATERIAL AND
methodsPubMed (Medline), Web of Science, and Google Scholar were systematically searched from the inception of each database until October 2024. Selection criteria included any articles comparing efficacy outcomes and at least one tolerability data between dienogest and COC in patients diagnosed with endometriosis. Studies comparing COC containing Dienogest or another type of hormonal treatment were excluded. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted if adequate data were available from at least three studies, reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios between groups using Review Manager V.7.9.0. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024598455.
resultsA total of four randomized control trials and one observational study were included, showing moderate risk at bias assessment. Meta-analysis did not show any statistical difference in improving pelvic pain after treatment [CI 95% (-1.45-1.17); I
conclusionsDienogest is comparable to COC in terms of efficacy and tolerability. The therapeutic choice should be based on the patient's preference, clinical history, and experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.