Cochrane · systematic review · CD002120
Combined oral contraceptive pill for primary dysmenorrhoea
Schroll, JB, Black, AY, Farquhar, C, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library
Gynaecology and FertilityAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
15
current version
GRADE rated
10
No studies
5
Included studies
NR
No studies 5 · 33.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 6.7%Low 6 · 40%Moderate 2 · 13.3%High 1 · 6.7%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Combined OCP compared to placebo or no treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea
Population: women with primary dysmenorrhoea
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain score ( Combined OCP vs placebo or no treatment | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 588 participants | High |
Pain improvement (assessed as improvement from 1 major category to next) Combined OCP vs placebo or no treatment | RR 1.65 [1.29, 2.1] | 6 studies · 717 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Adverse events Combined OCP vs placebo or no treatment | RR 1.31 [1.2, 1.43] | 7 studies · 1025 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Requirement for additional medication Combined OCP vs placebo or no treatment | RR 0.63 [0.4, 0.98] | 2 studies · 163 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Absence from work or school Combined OCP vs placebo or no treatment | RR 0.63 [0.41, 0.97] | 2 studies · 148 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Combined low‐dose OCP compared to another combined low‐dose OCP for primary dysmenorrhoea
Population: women with primary dysmenorrhoea
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain score ( Combined low‐dose OCP vs another combined low‐dose OCP | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 106 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Pain improvement Combined low‐dose OCP vs another combined low‐dose OCP | RR 1.06 [0.65, 1.74] | 1 study · 326 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events for continuous vs standard regimen OCP Combined low‐dose OCP vs another combined low‐dose OCP | RR 1.11 [1.01, 1.22] | 3 studies · 602 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Requirement for additional medication Combined low‐dose OCP vs another combined low‐dose OCP | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Absence from work or school Combined low‐dose OCP vs another combined low‐dose OCP | RR 1.12 [0.64, 1.99] | 1 study · 445 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
NSAID compared to combined OCP for primary dysmenorrhoea
Population: women with primary dysmenorrhoea
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain score (measured on VAS; 0–100; lower score is better) NSAID vs combined OCP | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 91 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Pain improvement NSAID vs combined OCP | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events NSAID vs combined OCP | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Requirement for additional medication NSAID vs combined OCP | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Absence from work or school NSAID vs combined OCP | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |