Evidence mapPaperPMID 41239841Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026

Laser and radiofrequency for treating genitourinary syndrome of menopause in breast cancer survivors: A systematic review of randomized controlled trial.

Nicoli Serquiz, Ayane Cristine Alves Sarmento, Antonio Carlos Queiroz de Aquino, Natalie Rios Almeida, Maria Luísa Nobre, Juliana Dantas de Araújo Santos Camargo, Kleyton Santos de Medeiros, Ana Katherine Gonçalves

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nicoli SerquizPostgraduate Program Student in Health Science, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Norte (UFRN), Natal, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0276-6061
Ayane Cristine Alves SarmentoPostgraduate Program Student in Health Science, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Norte (UFRN), Natal, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9131-1952
Antonio Carlos Queiroz de AquinoPostgraduate Program Student in Health Science, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Norte (UFRN), Natal, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1464-243X
Natalie Rios AlmeidaPostgraduate Program in Obstetrics and Gynecology, State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1372-9258
Maria Luísa NobreDepartment of Surgery, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0969-4806
Juliana Dantas de Araújo Santos CamargoPostgraduate Program Student in Health Science, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Norte (UFRN), Natal, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8692-5706
Kleyton Santos de MedeirosPostgraduate Program Student in Health Science, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Norte (UFRN), Natal, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4105-7535
Ana Katherine GonçalvesPostgraduate Program Student in Health Science, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Norte (UFRN), Natal, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8351-5119

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer survivors (BCS) often experience more severe symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). As estrogen-based hormonal therapy is generally avoided in BCS, physical energy methods may offer promising non-hormonal alternatives. However, the efficacy and safety of these treatments remain controversial.

objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of physical energy methods (laser and radiofrequency) for treating GSM in BCS. SEARCH STRATEGY: The databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SciELO, LILACS, and Clinical Trial databases were searched from their inception to July 2024, with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy and safety of any physical energy methods for treating GSM in BCS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies based on titles, abstracts, and full texts to meet the inclusion criteria. Due to heterogeneity in methodologies and outcomes, a meta-analysis was not possible, so a narrative synthesis was conducted. Data were extracted, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the strength of the evidence. MAIN

resultsThree RCTs involving 185 participants, and three different physical methods (microablative fractional CO

conclusionsPhysical energy methods show short-term safety in treating GSM in BCS. However, limited blinded clinical trials result in uncertain efficacy.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsFemale Urogenital DiseasesLaser TherapyMenopauseRadiofrequency TherapyFemaleHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSyndromeatrophybreast neoplasmscancer survivorsgenitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM)laser therapyradiofrequency therapy

Identifiers

PMID41239841
PMCPMC12988403

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.