Heger 2006.
Methods | Design: parallel‐group, multi‐centre Number of women randomly assigned: 110 Number of dropouts: n = 16 in ERr 731 group (one lack of efficacy, three violations of smoking ban, three adverse events, two organisational reasons, seven other reasons); n = 48 in placebo group (31 lack of efficacy, one violation of smoking ban, one adverse events, 16 other reasons) Number analysed: n = 109 (one woman refused to take the intervention) Intention‐to‐treat: yes, modified—only the women who took the interventions Power calculation: yes, using a group sequential design according to O'Brien and Fleming Duration: 12 weeks Timing: February 2003 to May 2004 Location: nine gynaecological outpatient departments in the Ukraine Funding: Health Research Services Ltd, Germany, and Chemisch‐Pharmazeutische Fabrik Goeppingen, Carl Muller, Apotheker, GmbH u Co KG, Goeppingen, Germany (manufacturer of the supplement) |
|
Participants | Inclusion criteria: climacteric complaints with MRS II total score > 22 points; perimenopause, defined as 45 to 55 years of age with cycle irregularity during the past 12 months or LMP at least three but no longer than 12 months ago Exclusion criteria: regular cycles during the past three months; mandatory indication for HT; treatment with drugs containing oestrogen/progestogen during past six months or any other Rx in past three months; PAP smear class III/IV and/or endometrial hyperplasia; known or suspected hypersensitivity to experimental intervention; concomitant medications that might influence trial results; BMI < 18 kg/m2 or > 30 kg/m2 and/or abnormal eating habits; wish to become pregnant or to be breast‐feeding; previous or existing major diseases; previous or existing psychiatric disorders including depression; smoking, moderate alcohol intake, coffee/chocolate intake of 500 mg or more of caffeine per day and/or suspected drug abuse; participation in another clinical trial during past six months; incompetence or incapability of understanding the trial Mean age, years: 49 Recruitment method: from outpatient departments (women seeking treatment for climacteric complaints) |
|
Interventions |
|
|
Outcomes | Primary
Secondary
|
|
Notes | ||
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | "Computer generated randomisation list with a balanced 1:1 randomisation using a block size of 4" |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not described |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Participants, investigators and data monitoring committee—all blinded |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Participants, investigators and data monitoring committee—all blinded |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | One woman did not take the intervention and was not included. When discontinuations were reported, the LOCF method was used for missing data |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Most prespecified outcomes reported; authors stated that an additional paper will report on the remaining outcomes |