↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Short-term and long-term effects of tibolone in postmenopausal women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
383 Mendeley
Title
Short-term and long-term effects of tibolone in postmenopausal women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008536.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giulio Formoso, Enrica Perrone, Susanna Maltoni, Sara Balduzzi, Jack Wilkinson, Vittorio Basevi, Anna Maria Marata, Nicola Magrini, Roberto D'Amico, Chiara Bassi, Emilio Maestri

Abstract

Tibolone is a synthetic steroid used for the treatment of menopausal symptoms, on the basis of short-term data suggesting its efficacy. We considered the balance between the benefits and risks of tibolone. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tibolone for treatment of postmenopausal and perimenopausal women. In October 2015, we searched the Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (from inception), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and clinicaltrials.gov. We checked the reference lists in articles retrieved. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tibolone versus placebo, oestrogens and/or combined hormone therapy (HT) in postmenopausal and perimenopausal women. We used standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes were vasomotor symptoms, unscheduled vaginal bleeding and long-term adverse events. We evaluated safety outcomes and bleeding in studies including women either with or without menopausal symptoms. We included 46 RCTs (19,976 women). Most RCTs evaluated tibolone for treating menopausal vasomotor symptoms. Some had other objectives, such as assessment of bleeding patterns, endometrial safety, bone health, sexuality and safety in women with a history of breast cancer. Two included women with uterine leiomyoma or lupus erythematosus. Tibolone versus placebo Vasomotor symptomsTibolone was more effective than placebo (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.10 to -0.89; seven RCTs; 1657 women; moderate-quality evidence), but removing trials at high risk of attrition bias attenuated this effect (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.49; odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 85% CI 0.27 to 0.41). This suggests that if 67% of women taking placebo experience vasomotor symptoms, between 35% and 45% of women taking tibolone will do so. Unscheduled bleedingTibolone was associated with greater likelihood of bleeding (OR 2.79, 95% CI 2.10 to 3.70; nine RCTs; 7814 women; I(2) = 43%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 18% of women taking placebo experience unscheduled bleeding, between 31% and 44% of women taking tibolone will do so. Long-term adverse eventsMost of the studies reporting these outcomes provided follow-up of two to three years (range three months to three years). Breast cancerWe found no evidence of differences between groups among women with no history of breast cancer (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.25; four RCTs; 5500 women; I(2)= 17%; very low-quality evidence). Among women with a history of breast cancer, tibolone was associated with increased risk (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.85; two RCTs; 3165 women; moderate-quality evidence). Cerebrovascular eventsWe found no conclusive evidence of differences between groups in cerebrovascular events (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.04; four RCTs; 7930 women; I(2) = 0%; very low-quality evidence). We obtained most data from a single RCT (n = 4506) of osteoporotic women aged 60 to 85 years, which was stopped prematurely for increased risk of stroke. Other outcomesEvidence on other outcomes was of low or very low quality, with no clear evidence of any differences between the groups. Effect estimates were as follows:• Endometrial cancer: OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 5.24; nine RCTs; 8504 women; I(2) = 0%.• Cardiovascular events: OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.27; four RCTs; 8401 women; I(2) = 0%.• Venous thromboembolic events: OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.97; 9176 women; I(2) = 0%.• Mortality from any cause: OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41; four RCTs; 8242 women; I(2) = 0%. Tibolone versus combined HT Vasomotor symptomsCombined HT was more effective than tibolone (SMD 0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.28; OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.66; nine studies; 1336 women; moderate-quality evidence). This result was robust to a sensitivity analysis that excluded trials with high risk of attrition bias, suggesting a slightly greater disadvantage of tibolone (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41; OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.10). This suggests that if 7% of women taking combined HT experience vasomotor symptoms, between 8% and 14% of women taking tibolone will do so. Unscheduled bleedingTibolone was associated with a lower rate of bleeding (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.41; 16 RCTs; 6438 women; I(2) = 72%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 47% of women taking combined HT experience unscheduled bleeding, between 18% and 27% of women taking tibolone will do so. Long-term adverse eventsMost studies reporting these outcomes provided follow-up of two to three years (range three months to three years). Evidence was of very low quality, with no clear evidence of any differences between the groups. Effect estimates were as follows:• Endometrial cancer: OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 9.33; five RCTs; 3689 women; I(2) = 0%.• Breast cancer: OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.67; five RCTs; 4835 women; I(2) = 0%.• Venous thromboembolic events: OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.14; four RCTs; 4529 women; I(2) = 0%.• Cardiovascular events: OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.66; two RCTs; 3794 women; I(2) = 0%.• Cerebrovascular events: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.66; four RCTs; 4562 women; I(2) = 0%.• Mortality from any cause: only one event reported (two RCTs; 970 women). Moderate-quality evidence suggests that tibolone is more effective than placebo but less effective than HT in reducing menopausal vasomotor symptoms, and that tibolone is associated with a higher rate of unscheduled bleeding than placebo but with a lower rate than HT.Compared with placebo, tibolone increases recurrent breast cancer rates in women with a history of breast cancer, and may increase stroke rates in women over 60 years of age. No evidence indicates that tibolone increases the risk of other long-term adverse events, or that it differs from HT with respect to long-term safety.Much of the evidence was of low or very low quality. Limitations included high risk of bias and imprecision. Most studies were financed by drug manufacturers or failed to disclose their funding source.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 383 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 381 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 14%
Student > Bachelor 41 11%
Researcher 37 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 8%
Other 25 7%
Other 83 22%
Unknown 113 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 129 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 4%
Psychology 13 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 3%
Other 58 15%
Unknown 115 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 July 2022.
All research outputs
#3,878,540
of 22,157,073 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,341
of 12,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,093
of 318,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#94
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,157,073 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.