↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for pain in women with endometriosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
122 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
404 Mendeley
Title
Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for pain in women with endometriosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004753.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Brown, Tineke J Crawford, Claire Allen, Sally Hopewell, Andrew Prentice

Abstract

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition that affects women and can lead to painful symptoms and infertility. It greatly affects women's quality of life, impacting their careers, everyday activities, sexual and nonsexual relationships and fertility. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are most commonly used as first-line treatment for women with pain associated with endometriosis. To assess effects of NSAIDs used for management of pain in women with endometriosis compared with placebo, other NSAIDs, other pain management drugs or no treatment. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials (October 2016), published in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, as well as MEDLINE (January 2008 to October 2016), Embase (date limited from 1 January 2016 to 19 October 2016, as all earlier references are included in CENTRAL output as a result of the Embase project), registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of relevant publications. We identified no new randomised controlled trials. Unless we identify new evidence in the future, we will not update this review. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) describing use of NSAIDs for management of pain associated with endometriosis in women of all ages. In the 2009 update of this review, two review authors (CA and SH) independently read and extracted data from each of the included studies. We analysed cross-over trials using the inverse variance method of RevMan to calculate odds ratios for binary outcomes. We identified no new trials for the 2016 update. This review includes two trials, but we included only one trial, with 24 women, in the analysis.The overall risk of bias was unclear owing to lack of methodological detail. Using the GRADE method, we judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. We downgraded evidence for risk of bias and for imprecision (wide confidence intervals and evidence based on a single small trial).Comparison of NSAIDs (naproxen) versus placebo revealed no evidence of a positive effect on pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 17.69; one trial, 24 women; very low-quality evidence) in women with endometriosis. Evidence indicating whether women taking NSAIDs (naproxen) were less likely to require additional analgesia (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.29; one trial, 24 women; very low-quality evidence) or to experience side effects (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.47; one trial, 24 women; very low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo was inconclusive.Studies provided no data on quality of life, effects on daily activities, absence from work or school, need for more invasive treatment or participant satisfaction with treatment. Owing to lack of high-quality evidence and lack of reporting of outcomes of interest for this review, we can make no judgement as to whether NSAIDs (naproxen) are effective in managing pain caused by endometriosis. No evidence shows whether any individual NSAID is more effective than another. As shown in other Cochrane reviews, women taking NSAIDs must be aware that these drugs may cause unintended effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 404 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 404 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 16%
Student > Bachelor 51 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 10%
Researcher 28 7%
Student > Postgraduate 21 5%
Other 75 19%
Unknown 125 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 130 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 4%
Unspecified 15 4%
Other 50 12%
Unknown 144 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. 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 24 March 2023.
All research outputs
#431,397
of 25,390,970 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#763
of 12,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,014
of 416,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,970 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 416,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.