↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Local oestrogen for vaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
399 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Local oestrogen for vaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001500.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane A Suckling, Ray Kennedy, Anne Lethaby, Helen Roberts, Suckling J, Lethaby A, Kennedy R, Suckling, Jane A, Kennedy, Ray, Lethaby, Anne, Roberts, Helen, Suckling, J, Lethaby, A, Kennedy, R

Abstract

Vaginal atrophy is a frequent complaint of postmenopausal women; symptoms include vaginal dryness, itching, discomfort and painful intercourse. Systemic treatment for these symptoms in the form of oral hormone replacement therapy is not always necessary. An alternative choice is oestrogenic preparations administered vaginally (in the form of creams, pessaries, tablets and the oestradiol-releasing ring). The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of oestrogenic preparations for women who suffer from vaginal atrophy. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Register of trials (searched January 2006), The Cochrane Library (2006,Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2006), EMBASE (1980 to January 2006), Current Contents (1993 to January 2006, Biological Abstracts (1969 to 2006), Social Sciences Index (1980 to January 2006), PsycINFO (1972 to February 2006), CINAHL (1982 to January 2006) and reference list of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field. The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of oestrogenic preparations administered intravaginally in postmenopausal women for the treatment of symptoms resulting from vaginal atrophy or vaginitis. Thirty-seven trials were identified: of these 18 were excluded. Included trials were assessed for quality and two reviewer authors extracted data independently. The ratios for dichotomous outcomes and means for continuous outcomes were calculated. The outcomes analysed were categorised under the headings of: efficacy, safety and acceptability. Nineteen trials with 4162 women were included in this review. The overall quality of the studies was good, although not all trials measured the same outcomes. All trials measured efficacy, with various outcome measures. When comparing the efficacy of different oestrogenic preparations (in the form of creams, pessaries, tablets and the oestradiol-releasing vaginal ring) in relieving the symptoms of vaginal atrophy, results indicated significant findings favouring the cream, ring, and tablets when compared to placebo and non-hormonal gel. Fourteen trials compared safety. Four looked at hyperplasia, four looked at endometrial overstimulation and seven looked at adverse effects. One trial showed significant adverse effects of the cream (conjugated equine oestrogen) when compared to tablets (oestradiol) which included uterine bleeding, breast pain and perineal pain (1 RCT; OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.50). Two trials showed significant endometrial overstimulation as evaluated by a progestagen challenge test with the cream (conjugated equine oestrogen) group when compared to the ring (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.78). Although not statistically significant there was a 2% incidence of simple hyperplasia in the ring group when compared to the cream (conjugated equine oestrogen) and 4% incidence of hyperplasia (one simple, one complex) in the cream group (conjugated equine oestrogen) when compared to the tablet (oestradiol). Eleven studies compared acceptability to the participants by comparing: comfort of product use, ease of use, overall product rating, delivery system and satisfaction. Results showed a significant preference for the oestradiol-releasing vaginal ring. Creams, pessaries, tablets and the oestradiol vaginal ring appeared to be equally effective for the symptoms of vaginal atrophy. One trial found significant side effects following cream (conjugated equine oestrogen) administration when compared to tablets causing uterine bleeding, breast pain and perineal pain. Another trial found significant endometrial overstimulation following use of the cream (conjugated equine oestrogen) when compared to the ring. As a treatment choice women appeared to favour the oestradiol-releasing vaginal ring for ease of use, comfort of product and overall satisfaction.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 9 8%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 24 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 32 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 September 2012.
All research outputs
#7,444,997
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,942
of 12,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,426
of 67,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#44
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 67,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.