Evidence mapPaperPMID 41667867Full record

SynthesisThe patient2026

Patient Preferences Regarding Menopausal Symptoms and Treatments: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Stated-Preference Studies.

Lucie Raskin, Emma Boretti, Jonathan Douxfils, Charlotte Beaudart

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 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

4 authors.

Lucie RaskinResearch Unit in Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences (NARILIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Namur, Rue de Bruxelles 61, 5000, Namur, Belgium. Lucie.raskin@unamur.be.ORCID 0009-0001-7915-8147
Emma BorettiResearch Unit in Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences (NARILIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Namur, Rue de Bruxelles 61, 5000, Namur, Belgium.
Jonathan DouxfilsResearch Unit in Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences (NARILIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Namur, Rue de Bruxelles 61, 5000, Namur, Belgium.
Charlotte BeaudartResearch Unit in Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences (NARILIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Namur, Rue de Bruxelles 61, 5000, Namur, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEnsuring therapies align with women's expectations can improve adherence and is crucial for the effectiveness and safety of menopausal treatments, especially in light of the concerns raised after the Women's Health Initiative study. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of studies reporting data on women's preferences for menopausal symptoms and treatments to better guide research and development of therapies.

designA systematic literature review was conducted on Medline (via Ovid) and Embase. This review used a structured search strategy to identify all quantitative stated-preference evidence on menopausal symptoms or treatments, including conjoint analysis, discrete choice experiment, best-worst scaling, or quantitative preference survey, published before April 2025. A manual search complemented the process. The quality of the included conjoint analyses was assessed using the Discrete Choice Experiments Reporting Checklist (DIRECT), and quantitative surveys were evaluated using the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) checklist. The whole conduct of the systematic review was performed in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42024614218).

resultsIn total, 606 references were screened after removing duplicates, and 7 studies were included (4 conjoint analyses and 3 quantitative surveys). Five studies were conducted in the USA, one in Sweden, and another was conducted across five European countries and the USA. Two main topics were covered: (1) preferences regarding menopausal symptoms and treatments and (2) preferences toward local estrogen therapies. First, regarding preferences for menopausal treatment, the most important attribute categories were efficacy and long-term safety. Limited data were provided on other treatment characteristics. Studies reported that women are dissatisfied with their current therapeutic options. Second, two studies focused on local estrogen therapies and revealed a preference for vaginal tablets with applicators over other treatment modalities.

conclusionsResearch on menopausal treatment preferences is currently limited. Diverse study designs hampered the comparison and synthesis of the results. There is a need to conduct further conjoint analyses, such as discrete choice experiments (DCE), to better understand women's preferences and improve patient management and treatment options.

Indexed as

MenopausePatient PreferenceEstrogen Replacement TherapyFemaleHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID41667867
PMCPMC13287261

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.