ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Medical Treatment for Endometriosis: One Size Does Not Fit All.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endometriosis is associated with nociceptive pain, as well as peripheral and central sensitization. Evidence-based treatment suggestions for controlling endometriosis should be based on the convergence of the best scientific evidence, physicians' clinical expertise, and the values and priorities of individual patients. In this non-systematic, comprehensive narrative review, data from available randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses on hormonal treatment for symptomatic endometriosis are interpreted through the lens of clinical experience. The role of patients in defining therapeutic trade-off balances is also taken into consideration. Most symptomatic patients benefit from hormonal therapy, including first-line (progestogens and estrogen-progestogen combinations) and second-line (GnRH agonists and antagonists) medications, to relieve nociceptive pain. To reduce the risk of venous and arterial thrombosis and avoid stimulating lesions, it is preferable to use combinations containing body-identical estrogens rather than ethinyl-estradiol. The main adverse effect of first-line medications is irregular bleeding, which adversely impacts efficacy, tolerability, and adherence. If progestogens and estrogen-progestogens do not improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL), promptly stepping up to GnRH analogues combined with add-back therapy is indicated. Add-on rather than upfront combination therapy is suggested. Separating the analogues and add-back therapy allows for choosing the compounds that best suit the characteristics of individual patients. Transdermal body-identical estradiol use is proposed in combination with both progestogens and GnRH analogues. Similar satisfactory outcomes are achieved with GnRH agonists and antagonists. Evidence on the use of neuromodulatory drugs to treat neuropathic and nociplastic pain is derived from studies of other chronic pain conditions and shows limited effectiveness. The two mainstays of hormonal therapy are (i) ovariostasis and (ii) amenorrhea. "Medical treatment failure" should not be declared unless a shift from first-line to second-line medications has been undertaken whenever these conditions are not met. For severely symptomatic adolescents and young women, secondary prevention through ovariostasis and amenorrhea should be pursued promptly to improve HRQoL, halt lesion progression, and preserve reproductive potential.
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.