Skip to main content
. 2021 Dec 18;2021(12):CD012912. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012912.pub2

Summary of findings 1. Nifedipine compared to placebo for primary dysmenorrhoea.

Nifedipine compared to placebo for primary dysmenorrhoea
Patient or population: primary dysmenorrhoea
Setting: outpatient clinic
Intervention: nifedipine
Comparison: placebo
Outcomes Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) Relative effect
(95% CI) № of participants
(studies) Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE) Comments
Risk with placebo Risk with nifedipine
Pain relief (any) 400 per 1,000 858 per 1,000
(635 to 954) OR 9.04
(2.61 to 31.31) 66
(2 RCTs) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1,2  
Good or excellent pain relief 0 per 1,000 0 per 1,000
(0 to 0) OR 43.78
(5.34 to 359.01) 66
(2 RCTs) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1,2  
Health‐related quality of life Not reported in any study    
Total adverse effects 800 per 1,000 790 per 1,000
(242 to 978) OR 0.94
(0.08 to 10.90) 24
(1 RCT) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 2,3  
Bothersome adverse effects 400 per 1,000 265 per 1,000
(45 to 737) OR 0.54
(0.07 to 4.20) 24
(1 RCT) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 2,3  
Requirement for additional medication 800 per 1,000 219 per 1,000
(74 to 561) OR 0.07
(0.02 to 0.32) 42
(1 RCT) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 2, 4  
*The risk in the intervention group (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; OR: Odds ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidenceHigh certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Downgraded 2 levels for imprecision; data from two small trials and thus likely underpowered to make reliable conclusions about outcomes
2Downgraded 1 level for serious risk of bias; very uneven allocation to intervention and control groups in one trial
3Downgraded 2 levels for imprecision; data only from one small trial and thus likely underpowered to make reliable conclusions about outcome
4Downgraded 1 level for serious risk of bias; unexplained high attrition (8/50 participants)