Skip to main content
. 2019 Aug 14;2019(8):CD001016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001016.pub3

Cameron 1990.

Methods Single‐centre with parallel‐group design
 MBL over 2 cycles assessed in 102 women with a subjective complaint of HMB. 20 women refused to collect sanitary pads, 10 women had anovulatory cycles and 40 women had MBL < 80 mL/cycle. The remaining women (n = 32) were randomized to treatment arms.
 No power calculation or ITT analysis
 No source of funding stated
Participants Patients aged 21‐51 years recruited from the Outpatient Department, Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, UK
 Inclusion criteria:
  1. MBL > 80 mL/cycle over 2 cycles measured by the alkaline haematin method


Exclusions:
  1. organic disease

  2. non‐ovulatory cycles

  3. non compliance with collecting pads

Interventions
  1. NET 5 mg twice daily on days 19‐26 of the menstrual cycle

  2. Mefenamic acid 500 mg 3 times/day on days 1‐5 of the menstrual cycle


Duration over 2 cycles
Outcomes MBL
 Number of days bleeding
 Cycle length
 Side effects
 Patient compliance
Notes Original data provided by the lead author
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Randomization technique centralized and controlled by pharmacy
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Adequate
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 PBAC, satisfaction, Adverse effect, response to treatment, bleeding High risk No blinding, lack of blinding likely to influence outcomes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 Haematin alkaline Low risk No blinding, lack of blinding unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 PBAC, satisfaction, Adverse effect, response to treatment High risk No blinding, lack of blinding likely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 Haematin Alkaline Low risk No blinding, lack of blinding unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk No withdrawals/exclusions reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No protocol available
Other bias Low risk Similar at baseline: groups balanced on baseline
Disclaimer: not stated
 CoI: not stated
 Source of funding: Not stated