Summary of findings 4. Post‐surgical medical therapy compared to placebo or no treatment for endometriosis.
| Post‐surgical medical therapy compared to placebo or no treatment for endometriosis | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with endometriosis Intervention: Post‐surgical medical therapy Comparison: placebo or no treatment | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| placebo or no treatment | Post‐surgical medical therapy | |||||
| Pain (VAS) ‐ Dysmenorrhoea at 12 months | The mean Pain (VAS) ‐ Dysmenorrhoea at 12 months in the intervention groups was 0.58 standard deviations lower (0.87 to 0.28 lower) | 187 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | SMD ‐0.58 (‐0.87 to ‐0.28) | ||
| Pain (dichotomous) ‐ Pain recurrence </= 12 months | 273 per 1000 | 207 per 1000 (142 to 300) | RR 0.76 (0.52 to 1.1) | 332 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low3 | |
| Pain (dichotomous) ‐ pain persistence/recurrence 5 years | 480 per 1000 | 446 per 1000 (254 to 797) | RR 0.93 (0.53 to 1.66) | 54 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,4 | |
| Recurrence ‐ AFS Score ‐ Total AFS score (12 months) | The mean Recurrence ‐ AFS Score ‐ Total AFS score (12 months) in the intervention groups was 2.29 lower (4.69 lower to 0.11 higher) | 43 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2,5 | |||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 There are inadequate details on blinding and attrition 2 Evidence is based on a single study 3 Two of the trials did not provide adequate details for allocation concealment or attrition and there was no blinding 4 The trial lacked details on all methodological aspects and there was no blinding 5 The trial lacked details on allocation concealment and randomisation