Dysmenorrhoea
Introduction
Dysmenorrhoea may begin soon after the menarche, after which it often improves with age, or it may originate later in life after the onset of an underlying causative condition. Dysmenorrhoea is common, and in up to 20% of women it may be severe enough to interfere with daily activities.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for primary dysmenorrhoea? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to January 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 35 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupressure, acupuncture, aspirin, behavioural interventions, contraceptives (combined oral), fish oil, herbal remedies, magnets, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, progestogens (intrauterine), spinal manipulation, surgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways, thiamine, toki-shakuyaku-san, topical heat, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), vitamin B12, and vitamin E.
About this condition
Definition
Dysmenorrhoea is painful menstrual cramps of uterine origin. It is commonly divided into primary dysmenorrhoea (pain without organic pathology) and secondary dysmenorrhoea (pelvic pain associated with an identifiable pathological condition, such as endometriosis [see review on endometriosis] or ovarian cysts). The initial onset of primary dysmenorrhoea is usually shortly after menarche (6–12 months), when ovulatory cycles are established. Pain duration is commonly 8 to 72 hours and is usually associated with the onset of menstrual flow. Secondary dysmenorrhoea can also occur at any time after menarche, but may arise as a new symptom during a woman's fourth and fifth decades, after the onset of an underlying causative condition. In this review we only consider studies in women with primary dysmenorrhoea. However, the results may also be generalisable to women with secondary dysmenorrhoea. Studies in women with endometriosis, adenomyosis, pelvic congestion, and fibroids may also examine dysmenorrhoea/pain as an outcome. For more information on these conditions and studies, see also reviews on endometriosis, menorrhagia, pelvic inflammatory disease, and fibroids.
Incidence/ Prevalence
Variations in the definition of dysmenorrhoea make it difficult to determine prevalence precisely. Studies tend to report on prevalence in adolescent girls, and the type of dysmenorrhoea is not always specified. Adolescent girls tend to have a higher prevalence of primary dysmenorrhoea than older women, as primary dysmenorrhoea can improve with age (see Prognosis). Secondary dysmenorrhoea rates may be lower in adolescents, as onset of causative conditions may not yet have occurred. Therefore, the results from prevalence studies of adolescents may not always be extrapolated to older women, or be accurate estimates of the prevalence of secondary dysmenorrhoea. However, various types of studies have found a consistently high prevalence in women of different ages and nationalities. One systematic review (search date 1996) of the prevalence of chronic pelvic pain, summarising both community and hospital surveys from developed countries, estimated prevalence to be 45% to 95%. A second systematic review of studies in developing countries (search date 2002) found that 25% to 50% of adult women and about 75% of adolescents experienced pain with menstruation, with 5% to 20% reporting severe dysmenorrhoea or pain that prevents them from participating in their usual activities. A third systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence rates among high-quality studies with samples representative of the general worldwide population (search date 2004) found that prevalence of dysmenorrhoea was 59% (95% CI 49% to 71%). Prevalence rates reported in the UK were between 45% and 97% for any dysmenorrhoea in community-based studies and between 41% and 62% in hospital-based studies.
Aetiology/ Risk factors
A systematic review (search date 2004) of cohort and case-control studies concluded that age <30 years, low BMI, smoking, earlier menarche (<12 years), longer cycles, heavy menstrual flow, nulliparity, premenstrual syndrome, sterilisation, clinically suspected pelvic inflammatory disease, sexual abuse, and psychological symptoms were associated with increased risk of dysmenorrhoea.
Prognosis
Primary dysmenorrhoea is a chronic recurring condition that affects most young women. Studies of the natural history of this condition are sparse. One longitudinal study in Scandinavia found that primary dysmenorrhoea often improves in the third decade of a woman's reproductive life, and is also reduced after childbirth. We found no studies that reliably examined the relationship between the prognosis of secondary dysmenorrhoea and the severity of the underlying pathology, such as endometriosis.
Aims of intervention
To relieve pain from dysmenorrhoea, with minimal adverse effects.
Outcomes
Pain: pain relief, measured either by a visual analogue scale, other pain scales (such as the TOTPAR [TOPAR] score, TOTPAR-8 [TOPAR-8], or SPID-8), or as a dichotomous outcome (pain relief achieved yes/no); overall improvement in dysmenorrhoea measured by change in dysmenorrhoeic symptoms either self reported or observed, proportion of women requiring analgesics in addition to their assigned treatment. Quality of life: quality of life scales, or other similar measures such as the Menstrual Distress or Menstrual Symptom Questionnaires. Daily activities and work: proportion of women reporting activity restriction or absences from work or school and hours or days of absence as a more selective measure. Adverse effects of treatment (incidence and type of adverse effects).
Methods
Clinical Evidence search and appraisal January 2010. The following databases were used to identify studies for this systematic review: Medline 1966 to January 2010, Embase 1980 to January 2010, and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 4 (1966 to date of issue). An additional search within The Cochrane Library was carried out for the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). We also searched for retractions of studies included in the review. Abstracts of the studies retrieved from the initial search were assessed by an information specialist. Selected studies were then sent to the contributor for additional assessment, using predetermined criteria to identify relevant studies. Study design criteria for inclusion in this review were: published systematic reviews of RCTs and RCTs in any language, at least single blinded, and containing >20 individuals of whom >80% were followed up. There was no minimum length of follow-up required to include studies. We excluded all studies described as "open", "open label", or not blinded unless blinding was impossible. We aimed to include studies in women with primary dysmenorrhoea or where a subgroup analysis was carried out in women with primary dysmenorrhoea. However, where studies included a mixture of primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea, we included studies in which at least 66% of women had primary dysmenorrhoea. We included systematic reviews of RCTs and RCTs where harms of an included intervention were studied applying the same study design criteria for inclusion as we did for benefits. In addition we use a regular surveillance protocol to capture harms alerts from organisations such as the FDA and the MHRA, which are added to the reviews as required. To aid readability of the numerical data in our reviews, we round many percentages to the nearest whole number. Readers should be aware of this when relating percentages to summary statistics such as relative risks (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs). We have performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions included in this review (see table). The categorisation of the quality of the evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low) reflects the quality of evidence available for our chosen outcomes in our defined populations of interest. These categorisations are not necessarily a reflection of the overall methodological quality of any individual study, because the Clinical Evidence population and outcome of choice may represent only a small subset of the total outcomes reported, and population included, in any individual trial. For further details of how we perform the GRADE evaluation and the scoring system we use, please see our website (www.clinicalevidence.com).
Table
GRADE Evaluation of interventions for Dysmenorrhoea.
| Important outcomes | Daily activities and work, Pain, Quality of life | ||||||||
| Studies (Participants) | Outcome | Comparison | Type of evidence | Quality | Consistency | Directness | Effect size | GRADE | Comment |
| What are the effects of treatments for primary dysmenorrhoea? | |||||||||
| 19 (1175) | Pain | NSAIDs versus placebo | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for unclear randomisation methodology and reporting of results post-crossover |
| at least 4 (at least 229) | Daily activities and work | NSAIDs versus placebo | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for unclear randomisation methodology. Directness point deducted for inclusion of data on aspirin v placebo |
| 6 (972) | Pain | Different NSAIDs versus each other | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for unclear randomisation methodology and reporting of results post-crossover. Directness point deducted for large number of comparators |
| 2 (205) | Pain | Acupressure versus sham acupressure or no treatment | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for narrow inclusion criteria |
| 1 (144) | Pain | Acupressure versus NSAIDs | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for narrow inclusion criteria |
| 9 (522) | Pain | Aspirin versus placebo | 4 | –2 | –1 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for short follow-up and reporting of results post-crossover. Consistency point deducted for different results for different outcomes |
| at least 3 (at least 203) | Daily activities and work | Aspirin versus placebo | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for short follow-up and reporting of results post-crossover |
| 1 (30) | Pain | Paracetamol versus placebo | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, incomplete reporting, and reporting of results post-crossover |
| 1 (30) | Pain | Paracetamol versus aspirin | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, incomplete reporting, and reporting of results post-crossover |
| 1 (32) | Pain | Aspirin versus NSAIDs | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality point deducted for sparse data, incomplete reporting, and methodological weaknesses including short follow-up, and reporting of results post-crossover |
| 2 (128) | Pain | Paracetamol versus NSAIDs | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, incomplete reporting, and methodological weaknesses including short follow-up, and reporting of results post-crossover |
| 1 (556) | Pain | Thiamine versus placebo | 4 | 0 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Moderate | Directness point deducted for restricted population (Indian adolescent women) |
| 1 (50) | Pain | Toki-shakuyaku-san versus placebo | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, unclear allocation methodology, and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (40) | Pain | Topical heat versus placebo | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for inclusion of volunteer women as well as those presenting for medical care |
| 1 (41) | Pain | Topical heat versus NSAIDs | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for inclusion of volunteer women as well as those presenting for medical care |
| 1 (301) | Pain | Topical heat versus paracetamol | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for incomplete reporting of results and short follow-up |
| at least 3 (at least 75) | Pain | High-frequency TENS versus placebo TENS | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, reporting of results post-crossover, and uncertainty about randomisation and blinding |
| 1 (24) | Daily activities and work | High-frequency TENS versus placebo TENS | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and uncertainty about randomisation and blinding |
| 1 (26) | Quality of life | High-frequency TENS versus placebo TENS | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and reporting of results post-crossover |
| 4 (86) | Pain | Low-frequency TENS versus placebo TENS or placebo tablet | 4 | –3 | –1 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, reporting of results post-crossover, and uncertainty about randomisation and blinding. Consistency point deducted for different results for different outcomes |
| 1 (24) | Daily activities and work | Low-frequency TENS versus placebo TENS or placebo tablet | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and uncertainty about randomisation and blinding |
| 3 (at least 39) | Pain | High-frequency TENS versus low-frequency TENS | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, reporting of results post-crossover, and uncertainty about randomisation and blinding |
| 1 (24) | Daily activities and work | High-frequency TENS versus low-frequency TENS | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and uncertainty about randomisation and blinding |
| 1 (32) | Pain | High-frequency TENS versus NSAIDs | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and reporting of results after crossover |
| 3 (478) | Pain | Vitamin E versus placebo | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for uncertainty about method of randomisation and no significance assessment performed in 1 RCT |
| 3 (292) | Pain | Acupuncture versus placebo acupuncture or no treatment | 4 | 0 | 0 | –2 | 0 | Low | Directness points deducted for uncertainty about method for assessing outcomes (use of non-validated pain scales in 1 RCT), inclusion of women with secondary dysmenorrhoea in 1 RCT, and large number of comparators |
| 1 (201) | Quality of life | Acupuncture versus placebo acupuncture or no treatment | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for significant baseline differences. Directness point deducted for inclusion of women with secondary dysmenorrhoea |
| 1 (120) | Pain | Acupuncture versus NSAIDs | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (69) | Pain | Relaxation treatment versus no treatment/waiting list control | 4 | –1 | –1 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Consistency point deducted for different results for subgroups. Directness point deducted for older classification of disease no longer used |
| 6 (497) | Pain | Combined oral contraceptives versus placebo/no treatment | 4 | –1 | –1 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for methodological flaws in included RCTs. Consistency point deducted for statistical heterogeneity |
| 2 (<120) | Pain | Fish oil versus placebo | 4 | –2 | –1 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and reporting of results post-crossover. Consistency point deducted for conflicting results. Directness point deducted for uncertainty about diagnosis |
| 3 (204) | Pain | Chinese herbal medicine versus placebo/no treatment | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for inclusion of different regimens |
| 14 (1441) | Pain | Chinese herbal medicine versus NSAIDs | 4 | 0 | –1 | –2 | 0 | Very low | Consistency point deducted for statistical heterogeneity. Directness points deducted for large number of comparators and inclusion of additional treatments |
| 2 (156) | Pain | Chinese herbal medicine versus acupuncture | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and methodological weakness in RCTs (uncertainty about follow-up, randomisation method, and blinding) |
| 1 (55) | Pain | Chinese herbal medicine versus topical heat | 4 | –3 | 0 | –1 | +2 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and methodological weaknesses (uncertainty about follow-up and randomisation method). Directness point deducted for uncertainty about method of assessment of outcome. Effect-size points added for large effect size |
| 1 (108) | Pain | Iranian herbal medicine versus placebo/no treatment | 4 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for sparse data |
| 1 (106) | Pain | Iranian herbal medicine versus mefenamic acid | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for no direct statistical comparison between groups |
| 2 (68) | Pain | Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation versus diagnostic laparoscopy | 4 | –1 | –1 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Consistency point deducted for different results at different time points |
| 1 (68) | Pain | Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation versus laparoscopic presacral neurectomy | 4 | –1 | –1 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Consistency point deducted for different results at different time points |
| 3 (207) | Pain | Spinal manipulation versus sham manipulation or no treatment | 4 | –2 | –1 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and methodological weaknesses (poor allocation concealment and poor blinding). Consistency point deducted for different results at different time points and between studies |
We initially allocate 4 points to evidence from RCTs, and 2 points to evidence from observational studies. To attain the final GRADE score for a given comparison, points are deducted or added from this initial score based on preset criteria relating to the categories of quality, directness, consistency, and effect size. Quality: based on issues affecting methodological rigour (e.g., incomplete reporting of results, quasi-randomisation, sparse data [<200 people in the analysis]). Consistency: based on similarity of results across studies. Directness: based on generalisability of population or outcomes. Effect size: based on magnitude of effect as measured by statistics such as relative risk, odds ratio, or hazard ratio.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this publication is intended for medical professionals. Categories presented in Clinical Evidence indicate a judgement about the strength of the evidence available to our contributors prior to publication and the relevant importance of benefit and harms. We rely on our contributors to confirm the accuracy of the information presented and to adhere to describe accepted practices. Readers should be aware that professionals in the field may have different opinions. Because of this and regular advances in medical research we strongly recommend that readers' independently verify specified treatments and drugs including manufacturers' guidance. Also, the categories do not indicate whether a particular treatment is generally appropriate or whether it is suitable for a particular individual. Ultimately it is the readers' responsibility to make their own professional judgements, so to appropriately advise and treat their patients. To the fullest extent permitted by law, BMJ Publishing Group Limited and its editors are not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, products liability or otherwise) whether they be direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential, resulting from the application of the information in this publication.
Benefits and harms
NSAIDs versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 2003, 36 RCTs, see further information on studies) and 5 subsequent RCTs.
Pain
Compared with placebo NSAIDs may be more effective at reducing pain after 8 to 12 hours in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain relief | |||||
Systematic review | 599 women with moderate to severe pain 14 RCTs in this analysis | Proportion of women with pain relief 192/288 (67%) with NSAIDs (naproxen [7 RCTs], diclofenac [2 RCTs], indometacin, mefenamic acid, niflumic acid, nimesulide, and piroxicam [1 RCT each]) 61/311 (20%) with placebo | RR 3.43 95% CI 2.70 to 4.35 | Moderate effect size | NSAIDs |
RCT Crossover design 5-armed trial | 104 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain outcomes (TOTPAR scores at 8 and 12 hours, time to pain relief, and time to remedication) with ibuprofen arginate 200 mg with ibuprofen arginate 400 mg with ibuprofen 200 mg with ibuprofen 400 mg with placebo Absolute results not reported | The RCT reported significantly improved pain outcomes with ibuprofen arginate 200 mg or 400 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg compared with placebo, further details not reported P values not reported | Effect size not calculated | ibuprofen arginate 200 mg or 400 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 73 women with moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain, assessed by TOPAR-8 score over 8 hours 20.0 with etoricoxib (120 mg, taken at the onset of painful menses) 12.6 with placebo (taken at the onset of painful menses) | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | etoricoxib |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 73 women with moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain, assessed by TOPAR-8 score over 8 hours 21.5 with naproxen sodium (550 mg, taken at the onset of painful menses) 12.6 with placebo (taken at the onset of painful menses) | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | naproxen sodium |
RCT Crossover design 4-armed trial | 144 women with moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by SPID-8 score over the first 8 hours 12.11 with naproxen (500 mg twice daily) 8.22 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | naproxen |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 149 women aged between 18 and 44 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by mean TOTPAR-8 scores over the first 8 hours 18.28 with celecoxib (400 mg, followed by 200 mg on day 1, then 200 mg twice daily as necessary on days 2 and 3) 12.82 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | celecoxib |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 149 women aged between 18 and 44 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by mean TOTPAR-8 scores over the first 8 hours 20.59 with naproxen sodium (550 mg twice daily on day 1, then 550 mg twice daily as necessary on days 2 and 3) 12.82 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | naproxen sodium |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 149 women aged between 18 and 44 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by mean SPID-8 values over the first 8 hours 10.06 with celecoxib (400 mg, followed by 200 mg on day 1, then 200 mg twice daily as necessary on days 2 and 3) 5.96 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | celecoxib |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 149 women aged between 18 and 44 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by mean SPID-8 values over the first 8 hours 11.48 with naproxen sodium (550 mg twice daily on day 1, then 550 mg twice daily as necessary on days 2 and 3) 5.96 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | naproxen sodium |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by visual analogue scale [scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain] 2 months 3.6 with mefenamic acid 5 with placebo | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | mefenamic acid |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by visual analogue scale [scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain] 3 months 2.4 with mefenamic acid 6 with placebo | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | mefenamic acid |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 2 months 3 hours with mefenamic acid 16.2 hours with placebo | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | mefenamic acid |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 3 months 3 hours with mefenamic acid 15.4 hours with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | mefenamic acid |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 667 women 10 RCTs in this analysis | Need for additional analgesia 104/390 (27%) with NSAIDs 150/277 (54%) with placebo | RR 0.57 95% CI 0.47 to 0.69 Analysis included data from 1 arm of an RCT (85 women; 4 treatment arms), which compared aspirin versus placebo | Small effect size | NSAIDs |
Daily activities and work
Compared with placebo NSAIDs may be more effective at reducing restriction of daily activities and increasing the ability to work (low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Different NSAIDs versus each other:
We found one systematic review (search date 2003) and three subsequent RCTs. The systematic review identified 26 RCTs, which compared different NSAIDs, but the review reported that only three RCTs reported data that were suitable for meta-analysis (see further information on studies).
Pain
Different NSAIDs compared with each other We don't know how effective different NSAIDs are, compared with each other, at reducing pain after 8 to 12 hours in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 73 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain intensity (assessed by visual analogue scale, scale not defined) 3.17 with mefenamic acid (500 mg three times daily) 2.94 with tolfenamic acid (200 mg three times daily) | WMD +0.23 95% CI –0.64 to +1.10 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 304 women Data from 1 RCT | Proportion of women with pain relief 125/155 (81%) with diclofenac (50 mg up to 3 times daily as required) 128/149 (86%) with nimesulide (100 mg up to 3 times daily as required) | OR 0.69 95% CI 0.38 to 1.25 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 81 women Data from 1 RCT | Proportion of women with pain relief 14/40 (35%) with ibuprofen (up to a maximum daily dose of 1200 mg) 20/41 (49%) with naproxen sodium (up to a maximum daily dose of 660 mg) | OR 0.57 95% CI 0.23 to 1.38 | Not significant | |
RCT Crossover design 5-armed trial | 104 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Time to pain relief 56 minutes with ibuprofen arginate 400 mg 90 minutes with conventional ibuprofen 200 mg | P <0.05 | Effect size not calculated | ibuprofen arginate 400 mg |
RCT Crossover design 5-armed trial | 104 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Time to pain relief 56 minutes with ibuprofen arginate 400 mg 86 minutes with conventional ibuprofen 400 mg | P <0.05 | Effect size not calculated | ibuprofen arginate 400 mg |
RCT Crossover design 5-armed trial | 104 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Time to remedication with ibuprofen arginate 200 mg or 400 mg with conventional ibuprofen 200 mg or 400 mg Absolute results not reported | Reported no significant difference between all active treatments (P >0.05) | Not significant | |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 73 women with moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain, assessed by mean TOTPAR-8 score over 8 hours 20.0 units with etoricoxib (120 mg, taken at the onset of painful menses) 21.5 units with naproxen sodium (550 mg, taken at the onset of painful menses) | P = 0.33 | Not significant | |
RCT 3-armed trial | 337 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Proportion of women who rated treatment as good over 3 to 5 days and 3 menstrual cycles 43/100 (43%) with meloxicam 7.5 mg daily 44/104 (42%) with meloxicam 15 mg daily 37/104 (35%) with mefenamic acid (500 mg three times daily) | P value for all groups v each other reported as not significant | Not significant |
Adverse effects
NSAIDs versus aspirin:
See option on simple analgesics.
NSAIDs versus paracetamol:
See option on simple analgesics.
NSAIDs versus TENS:
See option on TENS.
NSAIDs versus acupressure:
See option on acupressure.
NSAIDs versus topical heat:
See option on topical heat.
NSAIDs versus acupuncture:
See option on acupuncture.
NSAIDs versus herbal remedies:
See option on herbal remedies.
Further information on studies
The systematic review included only double-blind RCTs with <20% loss to follow-up. Only 5 of the included RCTs clearly described methods of randomisation and allocation concealment. The measurement and reporting of adverse effects by individual RCTs were generally poor, even taking into account the challenge of distinguishing between dysmenorrhoeic symptoms and medication effects. Methods of collecting this information varied: about one third of the RCTs described the use of prospective self-report forms or diaries, but another third assessed adverse effects retrospectively (at follow-up appointments), and the others were not specific about their methods. In some cases, the adverse effects recorded were those deemed by the study investigator to be medication related. Few RCTs provided adverse-effect data suitable for meta-analysis, and many provided no numerical data at all. NSAIDs versus placebo: The review found that 14 of 36 included RCTs examining NSAIDs versus placebo reported data suitable for meta-analysis. Of the 24 additional comparisons of 12 different NSAIDs versus placebo that were not suitable for meta-analysis, 19 found that NSAIDs significantly relieved pain (P <0.05), three found no significant difference (aspirin, diclofenac, and ibuprofen), and two did not report statistical results. Different NSAIDs versus each other: Despite the large number of included trials, it was not clear which NSAIDs were most effective for dysmenorrhoea. This was because most of the trials were relatively small, they covered a large number of different comparisons, and few of them provided data suitable for meta-analysis.
We have only reported the data on the comparison of naproxen versus placebo from this 4-armed trial; however, results should be interpreted with caution because the RCT may not have been powered to look at this comparison and results were presented post-crossover.
NSAIDs versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 2003, 36 RCTs, see further information on studies) and 5 subsequent RCTs.
Pain
Compared with placebo NSAIDs may be more effective at reducing pain after 8 to 12 hours in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain relief | |||||
Systematic review | 599 women with moderate to severe pain 14 RCTs in this analysis | Proportion of women with pain relief 192/288 (67%) with NSAIDs (naproxen [7 RCTs], diclofenac [2 RCTs], indometacin, mefenamic acid, niflumic acid, nimesulide, and piroxicam [1 RCT each]) 61/311 (20%) with placebo | RR 3.43 95% CI 2.70 to 4.35 | Moderate effect size | NSAIDs |
RCT Crossover design 5-armed trial | 104 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain outcomes (TOTPAR scores at 8 and 12 hours, time to pain relief, and time to remedication) with ibuprofen arginate 200 mg with ibuprofen arginate 400 mg with ibuprofen 200 mg with ibuprofen 400 mg with placebo Absolute results not reported | The RCT reported significantly improved pain outcomes with ibuprofen arginate 200 mg or 400 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg compared with placebo, further details not reported P values not reported | Effect size not calculated | ibuprofen arginate 200 mg or 400 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 73 women with moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain, assessed by TOPAR-8 score over 8 hours 20.0 with etoricoxib (120 mg, taken at the onset of painful menses) 12.6 with placebo (taken at the onset of painful menses) | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | etoricoxib |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 73 women with moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain, assessed by TOPAR-8 score over 8 hours 21.5 with naproxen sodium (550 mg, taken at the onset of painful menses) 12.6 with placebo (taken at the onset of painful menses) | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | naproxen sodium |
RCT Crossover design 4-armed trial | 144 women with moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by SPID-8 score over the first 8 hours 12.11 with naproxen (500 mg twice daily) 8.22 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | naproxen |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 149 women aged between 18 and 44 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by mean TOTPAR-8 scores over the first 8 hours 18.28 with celecoxib (400 mg, followed by 200 mg on day 1, then 200 mg twice daily as necessary on days 2 and 3) 12.82 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | celecoxib |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 149 women aged between 18 and 44 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by mean TOTPAR-8 scores over the first 8 hours 20.59 with naproxen sodium (550 mg twice daily on day 1, then 550 mg twice daily as necessary on days 2 and 3) 12.82 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | naproxen sodium |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 149 women aged between 18 and 44 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by mean SPID-8 values over the first 8 hours 10.06 with celecoxib (400 mg, followed by 200 mg on day 1, then 200 mg twice daily as necessary on days 2 and 3) 5.96 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | celecoxib |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 149 women aged between 18 and 44 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by mean SPID-8 values over the first 8 hours 11.48 with naproxen sodium (550 mg twice daily on day 1, then 550 mg twice daily as necessary on days 2 and 3) 5.96 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | naproxen sodium |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by visual analogue scale [scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain] 2 months 3.6 with mefenamic acid 5 with placebo | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | mefenamic acid |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by visual analogue scale [scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain] 3 months 2.4 with mefenamic acid 6 with placebo | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | mefenamic acid |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 2 months 3 hours with mefenamic acid 16.2 hours with placebo | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | mefenamic acid |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 3 months 3 hours with mefenamic acid 15.4 hours with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | mefenamic acid |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 667 women 10 RCTs in this analysis | Need for additional analgesia 104/390 (27%) with NSAIDs 150/277 (54%) with placebo | RR 0.57 95% CI 0.47 to 0.69 Analysis included data from 1 arm of an RCT (85 women; 4 treatment arms), which compared aspirin versus placebo | Small effect size | NSAIDs |
Daily activities and work
Compared with placebo NSAIDs may be more effective at reducing restriction of daily activities and increasing the ability to work (low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Pain
Compared with placebo NSAIDs may be more effective at reducing pain after 8 to 12 hours in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain relief | |||||
Systematic review | 599 women with moderate to severe pain 14 RCTs in this analysis | Proportion of women with pain relief 192/288 (67%) with NSAIDs (naproxen [7 RCTs], diclofenac [2 RCTs], indometacin, mefenamic acid, niflumic acid, nimesulide, and piroxicam [1 RCT each]) 61/311 (20%) with placebo | RR 3.43 95% CI 2.70 to 4.35 | Moderate effect size | NSAIDs |
RCT Crossover design 5-armed trial | 104 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain outcomes (TOTPAR scores at 8 and 12 hours, time to pain relief, and time to remedication) with ibuprofen arginate 200 mg with ibuprofen arginate 400 mg with ibuprofen 200 mg with ibuprofen 400 mg with placebo Absolute results not reported | The RCT reported significantly improved pain outcomes with ibuprofen arginate 200 mg or 400 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg compared with placebo, further details not reported P values not reported | Effect size not calculated | ibuprofen arginate 200 mg or 400 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 73 women with moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain, assessed by TOPAR-8 score over 8 hours 20.0 with etoricoxib (120 mg, taken at the onset of painful menses) 12.6 with placebo (taken at the onset of painful menses) | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | etoricoxib |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 73 women with moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain, assessed by TOPAR-8 score over 8 hours 21.5 with naproxen sodium (550 mg, taken at the onset of painful menses) 12.6 with placebo (taken at the onset of painful menses) | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | naproxen sodium |
RCT Crossover design 4-armed trial | 144 women with moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by SPID-8 score over the first 8 hours 12.11 with naproxen (500 mg twice daily) 8.22 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | naproxen |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 149 women aged between 18 and 44 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by mean TOTPAR-8 scores over the first 8 hours 18.28 with celecoxib (400 mg, followed by 200 mg on day 1, then 200 mg twice daily as necessary on days 2 and 3) 12.82 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | celecoxib |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 149 women aged between 18 and 44 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by mean TOTPAR-8 scores over the first 8 hours 20.59 with naproxen sodium (550 mg twice daily on day 1, then 550 mg twice daily as necessary on days 2 and 3) 12.82 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | naproxen sodium |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 149 women aged between 18 and 44 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by mean SPID-8 values over the first 8 hours 10.06 with celecoxib (400 mg, followed by 200 mg on day 1, then 200 mg twice daily as necessary on days 2 and 3) 5.96 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | celecoxib |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 149 women aged between 18 and 44 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain intensity, assessed by mean SPID-8 values over the first 8 hours 11.48 with naproxen sodium (550 mg twice daily on day 1, then 550 mg twice daily as necessary on days 2 and 3) 5.96 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | naproxen sodium |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by visual analogue scale [scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain] 2 months 3.6 with mefenamic acid 5 with placebo | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | mefenamic acid |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by visual analogue scale [scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain] 3 months 2.4 with mefenamic acid 6 with placebo | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | mefenamic acid |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 2 months 3 hours with mefenamic acid 16.2 hours with placebo | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | mefenamic acid |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 3 months 3 hours with mefenamic acid 15.4 hours with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | mefenamic acid |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 667 women 10 RCTs in this analysis | Need for additional analgesia 104/390 (27%) with NSAIDs 150/277 (54%) with placebo | RR 0.57 95% CI 0.47 to 0.69 Analysis included data from 1 arm of an RCT (85 women; 4 treatment arms), which compared aspirin versus placebo | Small effect size | NSAIDs |
Daily activities and work
Compared with placebo NSAIDs may be more effective at reducing restriction of daily activities and increasing the ability to work (low-quality evidence).
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Different NSAIDs versus each other:
We found one systematic review (search date 2003) and three subsequent RCTs. The systematic review identified 26 RCTs, which compared different NSAIDs, but the review reported that only three RCTs reported data that were suitable for meta-analysis (see further information on studies).
Pain
Different NSAIDs compared with each other We don't know how effective different NSAIDs are, compared with each other, at reducing pain after 8 to 12 hours in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 73 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain intensity (assessed by visual analogue scale, scale not defined) 3.17 with mefenamic acid (500 mg three times daily) 2.94 with tolfenamic acid (200 mg three times daily) | WMD +0.23 95% CI –0.64 to +1.10 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 304 women Data from 1 RCT | Proportion of women with pain relief 125/155 (81%) with diclofenac (50 mg up to 3 times daily as required) 128/149 (86%) with nimesulide (100 mg up to 3 times daily as required) | OR 0.69 95% CI 0.38 to 1.25 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 81 women Data from 1 RCT | Proportion of women with pain relief 14/40 (35%) with ibuprofen (up to a maximum daily dose of 1200 mg) 20/41 (49%) with naproxen sodium (up to a maximum daily dose of 660 mg) | OR 0.57 95% CI 0.23 to 1.38 | Not significant | |
RCT Crossover design 5-armed trial | 104 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Time to pain relief 56 minutes with ibuprofen arginate 400 mg 90 minutes with conventional ibuprofen 200 mg | P <0.05 | Effect size not calculated | ibuprofen arginate 400 mg |
RCT Crossover design 5-armed trial | 104 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Time to pain relief 56 minutes with ibuprofen arginate 400 mg 86 minutes with conventional ibuprofen 400 mg | P <0.05 | Effect size not calculated | ibuprofen arginate 400 mg |
RCT Crossover design 5-armed trial | 104 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Time to remedication with ibuprofen arginate 200 mg or 400 mg with conventional ibuprofen 200 mg or 400 mg Absolute results not reported | Reported no significant difference between all active treatments (P >0.05) | Not significant | |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 73 women with moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain, assessed by mean TOTPAR-8 score over 8 hours 20.0 units with etoricoxib (120 mg, taken at the onset of painful menses) 21.5 units with naproxen sodium (550 mg, taken at the onset of painful menses) | P = 0.33 | Not significant | |
RCT 3-armed trial | 337 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Proportion of women who rated treatment as good over 3 to 5 days and 3 menstrual cycles 43/100 (43%) with meloxicam 7.5 mg daily 44/104 (42%) with meloxicam 15 mg daily 37/104 (35%) with mefenamic acid (500 mg three times daily) | P value for all groups v each other reported as not significant | Not significant |
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Different NSAIDs compared with each other We don't know how effective different NSAIDs are, compared with each other, at reducing pain after 8 to 12 hours in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 73 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain intensity (assessed by visual analogue scale, scale not defined) 3.17 with mefenamic acid (500 mg three times daily) 2.94 with tolfenamic acid (200 mg three times daily) | WMD +0.23 95% CI –0.64 to +1.10 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 304 women Data from 1 RCT | Proportion of women with pain relief 125/155 (81%) with diclofenac (50 mg up to 3 times daily as required) 128/149 (86%) with nimesulide (100 mg up to 3 times daily as required) | OR 0.69 95% CI 0.38 to 1.25 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 81 women Data from 1 RCT | Proportion of women with pain relief 14/40 (35%) with ibuprofen (up to a maximum daily dose of 1200 mg) 20/41 (49%) with naproxen sodium (up to a maximum daily dose of 660 mg) | OR 0.57 95% CI 0.23 to 1.38 | Not significant | |
RCT Crossover design 5-armed trial | 104 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Time to pain relief 56 minutes with ibuprofen arginate 400 mg 90 minutes with conventional ibuprofen 200 mg | P <0.05 | Effect size not calculated | ibuprofen arginate 400 mg |
RCT Crossover design 5-armed trial | 104 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Time to pain relief 56 minutes with ibuprofen arginate 400 mg 86 minutes with conventional ibuprofen 400 mg | P <0.05 | Effect size not calculated | ibuprofen arginate 400 mg |
RCT Crossover design 5-armed trial | 104 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Time to remedication with ibuprofen arginate 200 mg or 400 mg with conventional ibuprofen 200 mg or 400 mg Absolute results not reported | Reported no significant difference between all active treatments (P >0.05) | Not significant | |
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 73 women with moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain, assessed by mean TOTPAR-8 score over 8 hours 20.0 units with etoricoxib (120 mg, taken at the onset of painful menses) 21.5 units with naproxen sodium (550 mg, taken at the onset of painful menses) | P = 0.33 | Not significant | |
RCT 3-armed trial | 337 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Proportion of women who rated treatment as good over 3 to 5 days and 3 menstrual cycles 43/100 (43%) with meloxicam 7.5 mg daily 44/104 (42%) with meloxicam 15 mg daily 37/104 (35%) with mefenamic acid (500 mg three times daily) | P value for all groups v each other reported as not significant | Not significant |
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
NSAIDs versus aspirin:
See option on simple analgesics.
NSAIDs versus paracetamol:
See option on simple analgesics.
NSAIDs versus TENS:
See option on TENS.
NSAIDs versus acupressure:
See option on acupressure.
NSAIDs versus topical heat:
See option on topical heat.
NSAIDs versus acupuncture:
See option on acupuncture.
NSAIDs versus herbal remedies:
See option on herbal remedies.
Further information on studies
The systematic review included only double-blind RCTs with <20% loss to follow-up. Only 5 of the included RCTs clearly described methods of randomisation and allocation concealment. The measurement and reporting of adverse effects by individual RCTs were generally poor, even taking into account the challenge of distinguishing between dysmenorrhoeic symptoms and medication effects. Methods of collecting this information varied: about one third of the RCTs described the use of prospective self-report forms or diaries, but another third assessed adverse effects retrospectively (at follow-up appointments), and the others were not specific about their methods. In some cases, the adverse effects recorded were those deemed by the study investigator to be medication related. Few RCTs provided adverse-effect data suitable for meta-analysis, and many provided no numerical data at all. NSAIDs versus placebo: The review found that 14 of 36 included RCTs examining NSAIDs versus placebo reported data suitable for meta-analysis. Of the 24 additional comparisons of 12 different NSAIDs versus placebo that were not suitable for meta-analysis, 19 found that NSAIDs significantly relieved pain (P <0.05), three found no significant difference (aspirin, diclofenac, and ibuprofen), and two did not report statistical results. Different NSAIDs versus each other: Despite the large number of included trials, it was not clear which NSAIDs were most effective for dysmenorrhoea. This was because most of the trials were relatively small, they covered a large number of different comparisons, and few of them provided data suitable for meta-analysis.
We have only reported the data on the comparison of naproxen versus placebo from this 4-armed trial; however, results should be interpreted with caution because the RCT may not have been powered to look at this comparison and results were presented post-crossover.
The systematic review included only double-blind RCTs with <20% loss to follow-up. Only 5 of the included RCTs clearly described methods of randomisation and allocation concealment. The measurement and reporting of adverse effects by individual RCTs were generally poor, even taking into account the challenge of distinguishing between dysmenorrhoeic symptoms and medication effects. Methods of collecting this information varied: about one third of the RCTs described the use of prospective self-report forms or diaries, but another third assessed adverse effects retrospectively (at follow-up appointments), and the others were not specific about their methods. In some cases, the adverse effects recorded were those deemed by the study investigator to be medication related. Few RCTs provided adverse-effect data suitable for meta-analysis, and many provided no numerical data at all. NSAIDs versus placebo: The review found that 14 of 36 included RCTs examining NSAIDs versus placebo reported data suitable for meta-analysis. Of the 24 additional comparisons of 12 different NSAIDs versus placebo that were not suitable for meta-analysis, 19 found that NSAIDs significantly relieved pain (P <0.05), three found no significant difference (aspirin, diclofenac, and ibuprofen), and two did not report statistical results. Different NSAIDs versus each other: Despite the large number of included trials, it was not clear which NSAIDs were most effective for dysmenorrhoea. This was because most of the trials were relatively small, they covered a large number of different comparisons, and few of them provided data suitable for meta-analysis.
The systematic review included only double-blind RCTs with <20% loss to follow-up. Only 5 of the included RCTs clearly described methods of randomisation and allocation concealment. The measurement and reporting of adverse effects by individual RCTs were generally poor, even taking into account the challenge of distinguishing between dysmenorrhoeic symptoms and medication effects. Methods of collecting this information varied: about one third of the RCTs described the use of prospective self-report forms or diaries, but another third assessed adverse effects retrospectively (at follow-up appointments), and the others were not specific about their methods. In some cases, the adverse effects recorded were those deemed by the study investigator to be medication related. Few RCTs provided adverse-effect data suitable for meta-analysis, and many provided no numerical data at all. NSAIDs versus placebo: The review found that 14 of 36 included RCTs examining NSAIDs versus placebo reported data suitable for meta-analysis. Of the 24 additional comparisons of 12 different NSAIDs versus placebo that were not suitable for meta-analysis, 19 found that NSAIDs significantly relieved pain (P <0.05), three found no significant difference (aspirin, diclofenac, and ibuprofen), and two did not report statistical results. Different NSAIDs versus each other: Despite the large number of included trials, it was not clear which NSAIDs were most effective for dysmenorrhoea. This was because most of the trials were relatively small, they covered a large number of different comparisons, and few of them provided data suitable for meta-analysis.
We have only reported the data on the comparison of naproxen versus placebo from this 4-armed trial; however, results should be interpreted with caution because the RCT may not have been powered to look at this comparison and results were presented post-crossover.
We have only reported the data on the comparison of naproxen versus placebo from this 4-armed trial; however, results should be interpreted with caution because the RCT may not have been powered to look at this comparison and results were presented post-crossover.
Clinical guide:
NSAIDs can be given as suppositories, which seem to have a similar effect on overall pain relief but less effect than oral treatment on spasmodic pain.
NSAIDs are an effective treatment for dysmenorrhoea, although women using them need to be aware of the significant risk of adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine which (if any) individual NSAID is the safest and most effective for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea.
Substantive changes
NSAIDs New evidence added. Categorisation unchanged (Beneficial).
Benefits and harms
Acupressure versus sham acupressure or no treatment:
We found one systematic review (search date 2008, 2 RCTs) and one additional RCT comparing the use of acupressure with sham acupressure or no treatment for treating primary dysmenorrhoea. The review did not pool the data because of heterogeneity of the RCTs. It did not give information on follow-up or absolute results for the individual RCTs (see further information on studies).
Pain
Compared with no treatment or sham acupressure Acupressure may be more effective than placebo acupressure or waiting list control at reducing pain after 2 to 3 months in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Acupressure versus NSAIDs:
We found one systematic review (search date 2008, 4 RCTs) comparing the use of acupressure with NSAIDs. The review did not pool the data because of heterogeneity of the RCTs. It did not give information on follow-up or absolute results for the individual RCTs. Three of the included RCTs were written in Chinese (see further information on studies).
Pain
Compared with NSAIDs We don't know how effective acupressure and ibuprofen are, compared with each other, at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Acupressure versus herbal remedies:
We found one systematic review (search date 2008, 1 RCT, 160 women) comparing acupressure with Chinese herbal medicine. The RCT was written in Chinese, see further information on studies.
Further information on studies
A meta-analysis could not be carried out because of heterogeneity of the included RCTs in types (acupuncture, acupressure, acupoint injections, and moxibustion) and duration of treatments. None of the 32 included RCTs in the review were considered by the review as high quality, 6 were of average quality, and 26 were of low quality. Only three RCTs reported a sample size calculation, one was double-blind, three RCTs reported intention-to-treat analyses, and the follow-up was >1 year in only 4 of 32 RCTs. The systematic review concluded that because of the small sample sizes of included trials and the poor methodological quality, there is no convincing evidence for acupuncture-related treatments being an effective treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. Acupressure versus sham acupressure or no treatment: One of the RCTs identified did not fulfil Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria because the follow-up was too low (<80%). Acupressure versus NSAIDs: Three RCTs comparing acupressure with indometacin or ibuprofen were written in Chinese. One of these RCTs did not fulfil Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria because the adequacy of randomisation was unclear (although the trial stated that women were "randomly divided", the methods section described allocation by clinical number suggesting pseudo-randomisation). We are awaiting full-text translation of the other two RCTs, and will assess these for inclusion at the next update. Acupressure versus herbal remedies: The review found no significant differences between groups in pain relief, but gave no further information. We are awaiting the full-text translation of the RCT, and will assess this for inclusion at the next update.
Acupressure versus sham acupressure or no treatment:
We found one systematic review (search date 2008, 2 RCTs) and one additional RCT comparing the use of acupressure with sham acupressure or no treatment for treating primary dysmenorrhoea. The review did not pool the data because of heterogeneity of the RCTs. It did not give information on follow-up or absolute results for the individual RCTs (see further information on studies).
Pain
Compared with no treatment or sham acupressure Acupressure may be more effective than placebo acupressure or waiting list control at reducing pain after 2 to 3 months in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Compared with no treatment or sham acupressure Acupressure may be more effective than placebo acupressure or waiting list control at reducing pain after 2 to 3 months in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Acupressure versus NSAIDs:
We found one systematic review (search date 2008, 4 RCTs) comparing the use of acupressure with NSAIDs. The review did not pool the data because of heterogeneity of the RCTs. It did not give information on follow-up or absolute results for the individual RCTs. Three of the included RCTs were written in Chinese (see further information on studies).
Pain
Compared with NSAIDs We don't know how effective acupressure and ibuprofen are, compared with each other, at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Compared with NSAIDs We don't know how effective acupressure and ibuprofen are, compared with each other, at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Acupressure versus herbal remedies:
We found one systematic review (search date 2008, 1 RCT, 160 women) comparing acupressure with Chinese herbal medicine. The RCT was written in Chinese, see further information on studies.
Further information on studies
A meta-analysis could not be carried out because of heterogeneity of the included RCTs in types (acupuncture, acupressure, acupoint injections, and moxibustion) and duration of treatments. None of the 32 included RCTs in the review were considered by the review as high quality, 6 were of average quality, and 26 were of low quality. Only three RCTs reported a sample size calculation, one was double-blind, three RCTs reported intention-to-treat analyses, and the follow-up was >1 year in only 4 of 32 RCTs. The systematic review concluded that because of the small sample sizes of included trials and the poor methodological quality, there is no convincing evidence for acupuncture-related treatments being an effective treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. Acupressure versus sham acupressure or no treatment: One of the RCTs identified did not fulfil Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria because the follow-up was too low (<80%). Acupressure versus NSAIDs: Three RCTs comparing acupressure with indometacin or ibuprofen were written in Chinese. One of these RCTs did not fulfil Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria because the adequacy of randomisation was unclear (although the trial stated that women were "randomly divided", the methods section described allocation by clinical number suggesting pseudo-randomisation). We are awaiting full-text translation of the other two RCTs, and will assess these for inclusion at the next update. Acupressure versus herbal remedies: The review found no significant differences between groups in pain relief, but gave no further information. We are awaiting the full-text translation of the RCT, and will assess this for inclusion at the next update.
A meta-analysis could not be carried out because of heterogeneity of the included RCTs in types (acupuncture, acupressure, acupoint injections, and moxibustion) and duration of treatments. None of the 32 included RCTs in the review were considered by the review as high quality, 6 were of average quality, and 26 were of low quality. Only three RCTs reported a sample size calculation, one was double-blind, three RCTs reported intention-to-treat analyses, and the follow-up was >1 year in only 4 of 32 RCTs. The systematic review concluded that because of the small sample sizes of included trials and the poor methodological quality, there is no convincing evidence for acupuncture-related treatments being an effective treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. Acupressure versus sham acupressure or no treatment: One of the RCTs identified did not fulfil Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria because the follow-up was too low (<80%). Acupressure versus NSAIDs: Three RCTs comparing acupressure with indometacin or ibuprofen were written in Chinese. One of these RCTs did not fulfil Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria because the adequacy of randomisation was unclear (although the trial stated that women were "randomly divided", the methods section described allocation by clinical number suggesting pseudo-randomisation). We are awaiting full-text translation of the other two RCTs, and will assess these for inclusion at the next update. Acupressure versus herbal remedies: The review found no significant differences between groups in pain relief, but gave no further information. We are awaiting the full-text translation of the RCT, and will assess this for inclusion at the next update.
A meta-analysis could not be carried out because of heterogeneity of the included RCTs in types (acupuncture, acupressure, acupoint injections, and moxibustion) and duration of treatments. None of the 32 included RCTs in the review were considered by the review as high quality, 6 were of average quality, and 26 were of low quality. Only three RCTs reported a sample size calculation, one was double-blind, three RCTs reported intention-to-treat analyses, and the follow-up was >1 year in only 4 of 32 RCTs. The systematic review concluded that because of the small sample sizes of included trials and the poor methodological quality, there is no convincing evidence for acupuncture-related treatments being an effective treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. Acupressure versus sham acupressure or no treatment: One of the RCTs identified did not fulfil Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria because the follow-up was too low (<80%). Acupressure versus NSAIDs: Three RCTs comparing acupressure with indometacin or ibuprofen were written in Chinese. One of these RCTs did not fulfil Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria because the adequacy of randomisation was unclear (although the trial stated that women were "randomly divided", the methods section described allocation by clinical number suggesting pseudo-randomisation). We are awaiting full-text translation of the other two RCTs, and will assess these for inclusion at the next update. Acupressure versus herbal remedies: The review found no significant differences between groups in pain relief, but gave no further information. We are awaiting the full-text translation of the RCT, and will assess this for inclusion at the next update.
Substantive changes
Acupressure New evidence added. Categorisation unchanged (Likely to be beneficial).
Benefits and harms
Aspirin versus placebo:
We found two systematic reviews (search date 1997, 8 RCTs, 486 women with primary dysmenorrhoea; and search date 2003, 2 RCTs, 143 women; see further information on studies).
Pain
Aspirin compared with placebo Aspirin may be more effective at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Aspirin compared with placebo We don't know whether aspirin is more effective at reducing restriction of daily activity and absence from work in women with dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Paracetamol versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 1997, 1 RCT).
Pain
Paracetamol compared with placebo Paracetamol may be no more effective at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Paracetamol versus aspirin:
We found one systematic review (search date 1997, 1 RCT).
Pain
Aspirin compared with paracetamol We don't know how effective aspirin and paracetamol are, compared with each other, at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Aspirin versus NSAIDs:
We found two systematic reviews (search dates 1997 and 2003). The first review identified two RCTs, which compared aspirin versus NSAIDs (ibuprofen or naproxen). However, one RCT did not meet Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria because of a high loss to follow-up. The second review identified no RCTs comparing NSAIDs versus aspirin that were suitable for meta-analysis.
Pain
Aspirin compared with NSAIDs Aspirin may be less effective than naproxen at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Paracetamol versus NSAIDs:
We found two systematic reviews (search dates 1997 and 2003).
Pain
Paracetamol compared with NSAIDs We don't know how effective paracetamol and NSAIDs are, compared with each other, at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Paracetamol versus topical heat:
See option on topical heat.
Further information on studies
Most RCTs included in the systematic review were short (usually only 1 menstrual cycle on each treatment), small, and used a crossover design without a washout period. All the RCTs used double-blinding. All the RCTs used oral administration of treatment in the form of tablets or capsules. Negative RCTs may have been too small to detect clinically important differences between aspirin, paracetamol, or compound analgesics and placebo.
The systematic review included only double-blind RCTs with <20% loss to follow-up. It found no RCTs for which the results were suitable for quantitative analysis of effects on pain relief.
Aspirin versus placebo:
We found two systematic reviews (search date 1997, 8 RCTs, 486 women with primary dysmenorrhoea; and search date 2003, 2 RCTs, 143 women; see further information on studies).
Pain
Aspirin compared with placebo Aspirin may be more effective at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Aspirin compared with placebo We don't know whether aspirin is more effective at reducing restriction of daily activity and absence from work in women with dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Pain
Aspirin compared with placebo Aspirin may be more effective at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Aspirin compared with placebo We don't know whether aspirin is more effective at reducing restriction of daily activity and absence from work in women with dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Paracetamol versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 1997, 1 RCT).
Pain
Paracetamol compared with placebo Paracetamol may be no more effective at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Paracetamol compared with placebo Paracetamol may be no more effective at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Paracetamol versus aspirin:
We found one systematic review (search date 1997, 1 RCT).
Pain
Aspirin compared with paracetamol We don't know how effective aspirin and paracetamol are, compared with each other, at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Aspirin compared with paracetamol We don't know how effective aspirin and paracetamol are, compared with each other, at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Aspirin versus NSAIDs:
We found two systematic reviews (search dates 1997 and 2003). The first review identified two RCTs, which compared aspirin versus NSAIDs (ibuprofen or naproxen). However, one RCT did not meet Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria because of a high loss to follow-up. The second review identified no RCTs comparing NSAIDs versus aspirin that were suitable for meta-analysis.
Pain
Aspirin compared with NSAIDs Aspirin may be less effective than naproxen at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Aspirin compared with NSAIDs Aspirin may be less effective than naproxen at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Paracetamol versus NSAIDs:
We found two systematic reviews (search dates 1997 and 2003).
Pain
Paracetamol compared with NSAIDs We don't know how effective paracetamol and NSAIDs are, compared with each other, at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Paracetamol compared with NSAIDs We don't know how effective paracetamol and NSAIDs are, compared with each other, at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Paracetamol versus topical heat:
See option on topical heat.
Further information on studies
Most RCTs included in the systematic review were short (usually only 1 menstrual cycle on each treatment), small, and used a crossover design without a washout period. All the RCTs used double-blinding. All the RCTs used oral administration of treatment in the form of tablets or capsules. Negative RCTs may have been too small to detect clinically important differences between aspirin, paracetamol, or compound analgesics and placebo.
The systematic review included only double-blind RCTs with <20% loss to follow-up. It found no RCTs for which the results were suitable for quantitative analysis of effects on pain relief.
Most RCTs included in the systematic review were short (usually only 1 menstrual cycle on each treatment), small, and used a crossover design without a washout period. All the RCTs used double-blinding. All the RCTs used oral administration of treatment in the form of tablets or capsules. Negative RCTs may have been too small to detect clinically important differences between aspirin, paracetamol, or compound analgesics and placebo.
Most RCTs included in the systematic review were short (usually only 1 menstrual cycle on each treatment), small, and used a crossover design without a washout period. All the RCTs used double-blinding. All the RCTs used oral administration of treatment in the form of tablets or capsules. Negative RCTs may have been too small to detect clinically important differences between aspirin, paracetamol, or compound analgesics and placebo.
The systematic review included only double-blind RCTs with <20% loss to follow-up. It found no RCTs for which the results were suitable for quantitative analysis of effects on pain relief.
The systematic review included only double-blind RCTs with <20% loss to follow-up. It found no RCTs for which the results were suitable for quantitative analysis of effects on pain relief.
August 2013, paracetamol (acetaminophen)
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a drug safety alert on the risk of rare but serious skin reactions with paracetamol (acetaminophen). These skin reactions, known as Stevens–Johnson Syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and acute generalised exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), can be fatal.(www.fda.gov/)
Substantive changes
No new evidence
Benefits and harms
Thiamine versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 2000, 1 RCT).
Pain
Compared with placebo Thiamine seems more effective at reducing pain after 60 days in Indian adolescent women with moderate to very severe primary dysmenorrhoea (moderate-quality evidence).
Further information on studies
After completion of the RCT, 87% of all women experienced no pain.
Thiamine versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 2000, 1 RCT).
Pain
Compared with placebo Thiamine seems more effective at reducing pain after 60 days in Indian adolescent women with moderate to very severe primary dysmenorrhoea (moderate-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Compared with placebo Thiamine seems more effective at reducing pain after 60 days in Indian adolescent women with moderate to very severe primary dysmenorrhoea (moderate-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Further information on studies
After completion of the RCT, 87% of all women experienced no pain.
After completion of the RCT, 87% of all women experienced no pain.
After completion of the RCT, 87% of all women experienced no pain.
Substantive changes
No new evidence
Benefits and harms
Toki-shakuyaku-san versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 2000, 1 RCT).
Pain
Compared with placebo Toki-shakuyaku-san may be more effective at reducing pain after 6 months in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 50 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain, as measured by a visual analogue scale after 6 months with toki-shakuyaku-san (2.5 g three times daily) with placebo Absolute results reported graphically | P <0.005 | Effect size not calculated | toki-shakuyaku-san |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 50 women Data from 1 RCT | Need for additional medication (diclofenac sodium) after 6 months with toki-shakuyaku-san (2.5 g three times daily) with placebo Absolute results reported graphically | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | toki-shakuyaku-san |
Further information on studies
The allocation method was not clearly described in the RCT.
Toki-shakuyaku-san versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 2000, 1 RCT).
Pain
Compared with placebo Toki-shakuyaku-san may be more effective at reducing pain after 6 months in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 50 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain, as measured by a visual analogue scale after 6 months with toki-shakuyaku-san (2.5 g three times daily) with placebo Absolute results reported graphically | P <0.005 | Effect size not calculated | toki-shakuyaku-san |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 50 women Data from 1 RCT | Need for additional medication (diclofenac sodium) after 6 months with toki-shakuyaku-san (2.5 g three times daily) with placebo Absolute results reported graphically | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | toki-shakuyaku-san |
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Compared with placebo Toki-shakuyaku-san may be more effective at reducing pain after 6 months in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 50 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain, as measured by a visual analogue scale after 6 months with toki-shakuyaku-san (2.5 g three times daily) with placebo Absolute results reported graphically | P <0.005 | Effect size not calculated | toki-shakuyaku-san |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 50 women Data from 1 RCT | Need for additional medication (diclofenac sodium) after 6 months with toki-shakuyaku-san (2.5 g three times daily) with placebo Absolute results reported graphically | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | toki-shakuyaku-san |
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Further information on studies
The allocation method was not clearly described in the RCT.
The allocation method was not clearly described in the RCT.
The allocation method was not clearly described in the RCT.
Substantive changes
No new evidence
Benefits and harms
Topical heat versus placebo:
Pain
Compared with placebo Topical heat plus placebo tablets may be more effective than an unheated patch plus placebo at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Topical heat versus NSAIDs:
Pain
Compared with NSAIDs We don't know how effective topical heat treatment plus placebo and an unheated topical patch plus ibuprofen are, compared with each other, at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Topical heat versus paracetamol:
Pain
Compared with paracetamol Topical heat treatment may be more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea after 8 hours (low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Topical heat versus Chinese herbal remedies:
See option on herbal remedies.
Further information on studies
Participants in the RCT included volunteer women. Dysmenorrhoea in these women may have a different pattern and response to treatment from dysmenorrhoea in women seeking health care.
No data were reported for the placebo groups.
Topical heat versus placebo:
Pain
Compared with placebo Topical heat plus placebo tablets may be more effective than an unheated patch plus placebo at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Compared with placebo Topical heat plus placebo tablets may be more effective than an unheated patch plus placebo at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Topical heat versus NSAIDs:
Pain
Compared with NSAIDs We don't know how effective topical heat treatment plus placebo and an unheated topical patch plus ibuprofen are, compared with each other, at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Compared with NSAIDs We don't know how effective topical heat treatment plus placebo and an unheated topical patch plus ibuprofen are, compared with each other, at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Topical heat versus paracetamol:
Pain
Compared with paracetamol Topical heat treatment may be more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea after 8 hours (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Compared with paracetamol Topical heat treatment may be more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea after 8 hours (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Topical heat versus Chinese herbal remedies:
See option on herbal remedies.
Further information on studies
Participants in the RCT included volunteer women. Dysmenorrhoea in these women may have a different pattern and response to treatment from dysmenorrhoea in women seeking health care.
No data were reported for the placebo groups.
Participants in the RCT included volunteer women. Dysmenorrhoea in these women may have a different pattern and response to treatment from dysmenorrhoea in women seeking health care.
Participants in the RCT included volunteer women. Dysmenorrhoea in these women may have a different pattern and response to treatment from dysmenorrhoea in women seeking health care.
No data were reported for the placebo groups.
No data were reported for the placebo groups.
Substantive changes
Topical heat New evidence added. Categorisation unchanged (Likely to be beneficial).
Benefits and harms
High-frequency TENS versus placebo TENS:
We found one systematic review (search date 2009, 4 RCTs) and one subsequent RCT in women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Pain
High-frequency TENS compared with placebo High-frequency TENS may be more effective than placebo TENS at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 53 women with primary dysmenorrhoea 2 RCTs in this analysis | Pain relief, as measured by subjective assessment 30/53 (57%) with high-frequency TENS 8/53 (15%) with placebo TENS | OR 7.2 95% CI 3.1 to 16.5 | Large effect size | high-frequency TENS |
RCT Crossover design | 26 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Change in visual analogue scale pain score after treatment From 4.81 to 2.18 with TENS for 1 cycle From 4.44 to 3.07 with sham TENS for 1 cycle | P = 0.018 | Effect size not calculated | TENS |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 32 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Proportion of women needing additional analgesics 22/32 (69%) with high-frequency TENS 28/32 (88%) with placebo TENS | OR 0.3 95% CI 0.1 to 1.1 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of analgesic tablets taken each day 6.92 with high-frequency TENS 6.78 with placebo TENS | WMD +0.1 tablets 95% CI –2.1 tablets to +2.4 tablets Randomisation and blinding unclear | Not significant |
Daily activities and work
High-frequency TENS compared with placebo We don't know whether high-frequency TENS is more effective than placebo TENS at reducing absence from work or school in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Absence from work or school | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of lost hours each menstrual cycle 1.46 hours with high-frequency TENS 1.42 hours with placebo TENS | WMD +0.04 hours 95% CI –0.4 hours to +0.5 hours Randomisation and blinding unclear | Not significant |
Quality of life
High-frequency TENS compared with placebo We don't know whether high-frequency TENS is more effective than placebo at improving quality of life, assessed by the Menstrual Distress Questionnaire or the Short-Form (SF)-36 Health Survey in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Quality of life | |||||
RCT Crossover design | 26 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Menstrual Distress Questionnaire total score 25.4 with TENS for 1 cycle 27.4 with sham TENS for 1 cycle | P = 0.079 | Not significant | |
RCT Crossover design | 26 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Short-Form (SF)-36 questionnaire with TENS for 1 cycle with sham TENS for 1 cycle | No significant difference in any subcategory score P = 0.173 to 0.992 | Not significant |
Adverse effects
Low-frequency TENS versus placebo TENS or placebo tablet:
We found one systematic review (search date 2009, 5 RCTs) in women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Pain
Low-frequency TENS compared with placebo We don't know whether low-frequency TENS is more effective than placebo TENS at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 42 women with primary dysmenorrhoea 2 RCTs in this analysis | Pain relief by subjective assessment 18/31 (58%) with low-frequency TENS 15/32 (47%) with placebo TENS or tablet | OR 1.8 95% CI 0.6 to 5.1 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 20 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Pain relief with low-frequency TENS with placebo TENS or tablet Absolute results not reported | P <0.05 | Effect size not calculated | low-frequency TENS |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of additional tablets of analgesic used 3.7 with low-frequency TENS 6.8 with placebo TENS or tablet | WMD –3.1 tablets 95% CI –5.5 tablets to –0.7 tablets Randomisation and blinding unclear | Effect size not calculated | low-frequency TENS |
Daily activities and work
Low-frequency TENS compared with placebo We don't know whether low-frequency TENS is more effective than placebo TENS at reducing absence from work or school in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Absence from work/school | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean hours of absence from work or school 1.23 hours with low-frequency TENS 1.42 hours with placebo TENS or tablet | WMD –0.2 hours 95% CI –0.6 hours to +0.2 hours Randomisation and blinding unclear | Not significant |
High-frequency TENS versus low-frequency TENS:
We found one systematic review (search date 2009, 3 RCTs) in women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Pain
High-frequency TENS compared with low-frequency TENS We don't know whether high-frequency TENS is more effective than low-frequency TENS at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 21 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Proportion of women with pain relief measured by subjective assessment 16/21 (76%) with high-frequency TENS 9/21 (43%) with low-frequency TENS | OR 3.9 95% CI 1.1 to 13.0 | Moderate effect size | high-frequency TENS |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of additional analgesic tablets taken 6.9 with high-frequency TENS 3.7 with low-frequency TENS | WMD 3.2 tablets 95% CI 0.5 tablets to 5.9 tablets Randomisation and blinding unclear | Effect size not calculated | low-frequency TENS |
Daily activities and work
High-frequency TENS compared with low-frequency TENS We don't know whether high-frequency TENS is more effective than low-frequency TENS at reducing absence from work or school in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Absence from work or school | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean hours of absence from work or school 1.46 hours with high-frequency TENS 1.23 hours with low-frequency TENS | WMD +0.2 hours 95% CI –0.2 hours to +0.6 hours Randomisation and blinding unclear | Not significant |
High-frequency TENS versus NSAIDs:
We found one systematic review (search date 2009, 2 RCTs) in women with primary dysmenorrhoea. One of the included RCTs did not meet Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria (see comment).
Pain
High-frequency TENS compared with NSAIDs High-frequency TENS may be less effective than ibuprofen NSAIDs at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 32 women In review | Proportion of women experiencing pain relief 14/32 (44%) with high-frequency TENS 24/32 (75%) with ibuprofen | OR 0.26 95% CI 0.09 to 0.75 | Moderate effect size | ibuprofen |
Further information on studies
High-frequency TENS versus low-frequency TENS:One additional RCT, which could not be included in the meta-analysis, found that low-frequency TENS significantly reduced pain compared with high-frequency TENS (P <0.05).
High-frequency TENS versus placebo TENS:
We found one systematic review (search date 2009, 4 RCTs) and one subsequent RCT in women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Pain
High-frequency TENS compared with placebo High-frequency TENS may be more effective than placebo TENS at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 53 women with primary dysmenorrhoea 2 RCTs in this analysis | Pain relief, as measured by subjective assessment 30/53 (57%) with high-frequency TENS 8/53 (15%) with placebo TENS | OR 7.2 95% CI 3.1 to 16.5 | Large effect size | high-frequency TENS |
RCT Crossover design | 26 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Change in visual analogue scale pain score after treatment From 4.81 to 2.18 with TENS for 1 cycle From 4.44 to 3.07 with sham TENS for 1 cycle | P = 0.018 | Effect size not calculated | TENS |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 32 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Proportion of women needing additional analgesics 22/32 (69%) with high-frequency TENS 28/32 (88%) with placebo TENS | OR 0.3 95% CI 0.1 to 1.1 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of analgesic tablets taken each day 6.92 with high-frequency TENS 6.78 with placebo TENS | WMD +0.1 tablets 95% CI –2.1 tablets to +2.4 tablets Randomisation and blinding unclear | Not significant |
Daily activities and work
High-frequency TENS compared with placebo We don't know whether high-frequency TENS is more effective than placebo TENS at reducing absence from work or school in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Absence from work or school | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of lost hours each menstrual cycle 1.46 hours with high-frequency TENS 1.42 hours with placebo TENS | WMD +0.04 hours 95% CI –0.4 hours to +0.5 hours Randomisation and blinding unclear | Not significant |
Quality of life
High-frequency TENS compared with placebo We don't know whether high-frequency TENS is more effective than placebo at improving quality of life, assessed by the Menstrual Distress Questionnaire or the Short-Form (SF)-36 Health Survey in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Quality of life | |||||
RCT Crossover design | 26 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Menstrual Distress Questionnaire total score 25.4 with TENS for 1 cycle 27.4 with sham TENS for 1 cycle | P = 0.079 | Not significant | |
RCT Crossover design | 26 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Short-Form (SF)-36 questionnaire with TENS for 1 cycle with sham TENS for 1 cycle | No significant difference in any subcategory score P = 0.173 to 0.992 | Not significant |
Adverse effects
Pain
High-frequency TENS compared with placebo High-frequency TENS may be more effective than placebo TENS at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 53 women with primary dysmenorrhoea 2 RCTs in this analysis | Pain relief, as measured by subjective assessment 30/53 (57%) with high-frequency TENS 8/53 (15%) with placebo TENS | OR 7.2 95% CI 3.1 to 16.5 | Large effect size | high-frequency TENS |
RCT Crossover design | 26 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Change in visual analogue scale pain score after treatment From 4.81 to 2.18 with TENS for 1 cycle From 4.44 to 3.07 with sham TENS for 1 cycle | P = 0.018 | Effect size not calculated | TENS |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 32 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Proportion of women needing additional analgesics 22/32 (69%) with high-frequency TENS 28/32 (88%) with placebo TENS | OR 0.3 95% CI 0.1 to 1.1 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of analgesic tablets taken each day 6.92 with high-frequency TENS 6.78 with placebo TENS | WMD +0.1 tablets 95% CI –2.1 tablets to +2.4 tablets Randomisation and blinding unclear | Not significant |
Daily activities and work
High-frequency TENS compared with placebo We don't know whether high-frequency TENS is more effective than placebo TENS at reducing absence from work or school in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Absence from work or school | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of lost hours each menstrual cycle 1.46 hours with high-frequency TENS 1.42 hours with placebo TENS | WMD +0.04 hours 95% CI –0.4 hours to +0.5 hours Randomisation and blinding unclear | Not significant |
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Quality of life
High-frequency TENS compared with placebo We don't know whether high-frequency TENS is more effective than placebo at improving quality of life, assessed by the Menstrual Distress Questionnaire or the Short-Form (SF)-36 Health Survey in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Quality of life | |||||
RCT Crossover design | 26 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Menstrual Distress Questionnaire total score 25.4 with TENS for 1 cycle 27.4 with sham TENS for 1 cycle | P = 0.079 | Not significant | |
RCT Crossover design | 26 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Short-Form (SF)-36 questionnaire with TENS for 1 cycle with sham TENS for 1 cycle | No significant difference in any subcategory score P = 0.173 to 0.992 | Not significant |
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Low-frequency TENS versus placebo TENS or placebo tablet:
We found one systematic review (search date 2009, 5 RCTs) in women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Pain
Low-frequency TENS compared with placebo We don't know whether low-frequency TENS is more effective than placebo TENS at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 42 women with primary dysmenorrhoea 2 RCTs in this analysis | Pain relief by subjective assessment 18/31 (58%) with low-frequency TENS 15/32 (47%) with placebo TENS or tablet | OR 1.8 95% CI 0.6 to 5.1 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 20 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Pain relief with low-frequency TENS with placebo TENS or tablet Absolute results not reported | P <0.05 | Effect size not calculated | low-frequency TENS |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of additional tablets of analgesic used 3.7 with low-frequency TENS 6.8 with placebo TENS or tablet | WMD –3.1 tablets 95% CI –5.5 tablets to –0.7 tablets Randomisation and blinding unclear | Effect size not calculated | low-frequency TENS |
Daily activities and work
Low-frequency TENS compared with placebo We don't know whether low-frequency TENS is more effective than placebo TENS at reducing absence from work or school in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Absence from work/school | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean hours of absence from work or school 1.23 hours with low-frequency TENS 1.42 hours with placebo TENS or tablet | WMD –0.2 hours 95% CI –0.6 hours to +0.2 hours Randomisation and blinding unclear | Not significant |
Adverse effects
Pain
Low-frequency TENS compared with placebo We don't know whether low-frequency TENS is more effective than placebo TENS at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 42 women with primary dysmenorrhoea 2 RCTs in this analysis | Pain relief by subjective assessment 18/31 (58%) with low-frequency TENS 15/32 (47%) with placebo TENS or tablet | OR 1.8 95% CI 0.6 to 5.1 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 20 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Pain relief with low-frequency TENS with placebo TENS or tablet Absolute results not reported | P <0.05 | Effect size not calculated | low-frequency TENS |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of additional tablets of analgesic used 3.7 with low-frequency TENS 6.8 with placebo TENS or tablet | WMD –3.1 tablets 95% CI –5.5 tablets to –0.7 tablets Randomisation and blinding unclear | Effect size not calculated | low-frequency TENS |
Daily activities and work
Low-frequency TENS compared with placebo We don't know whether low-frequency TENS is more effective than placebo TENS at reducing absence from work or school in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Absence from work/school | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean hours of absence from work or school 1.23 hours with low-frequency TENS 1.42 hours with placebo TENS or tablet | WMD –0.2 hours 95% CI –0.6 hours to +0.2 hours Randomisation and blinding unclear | Not significant |
Adverse effects
High-frequency TENS versus low-frequency TENS:
We found one systematic review (search date 2009, 3 RCTs) in women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Pain
High-frequency TENS compared with low-frequency TENS We don't know whether high-frequency TENS is more effective than low-frequency TENS at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 21 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Proportion of women with pain relief measured by subjective assessment 16/21 (76%) with high-frequency TENS 9/21 (43%) with low-frequency TENS | OR 3.9 95% CI 1.1 to 13.0 | Moderate effect size | high-frequency TENS |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of additional analgesic tablets taken 6.9 with high-frequency TENS 3.7 with low-frequency TENS | WMD 3.2 tablets 95% CI 0.5 tablets to 5.9 tablets Randomisation and blinding unclear | Effect size not calculated | low-frequency TENS |
Daily activities and work
High-frequency TENS compared with low-frequency TENS We don't know whether high-frequency TENS is more effective than low-frequency TENS at reducing absence from work or school in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Absence from work or school | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean hours of absence from work or school 1.46 hours with high-frequency TENS 1.23 hours with low-frequency TENS | WMD +0.2 hours 95% CI –0.2 hours to +0.6 hours Randomisation and blinding unclear | Not significant |
Adverse effects
Pain
High-frequency TENS compared with low-frequency TENS We don't know whether high-frequency TENS is more effective than low-frequency TENS at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 21 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Proportion of women with pain relief measured by subjective assessment 16/21 (76%) with high-frequency TENS 9/21 (43%) with low-frequency TENS | OR 3.9 95% CI 1.1 to 13.0 | Moderate effect size | high-frequency TENS |
| Need for additional medication | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of additional analgesic tablets taken 6.9 with high-frequency TENS 3.7 with low-frequency TENS | WMD 3.2 tablets 95% CI 0.5 tablets to 5.9 tablets Randomisation and blinding unclear | Effect size not calculated | low-frequency TENS |
Daily activities and work
High-frequency TENS compared with low-frequency TENS We don't know whether high-frequency TENS is more effective than low-frequency TENS at reducing absence from work or school in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Absence from work or school | |||||
Systematic review | 24 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Mean hours of absence from work or school 1.46 hours with high-frequency TENS 1.23 hours with low-frequency TENS | WMD +0.2 hours 95% CI –0.2 hours to +0.6 hours Randomisation and blinding unclear | Not significant |
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
High-frequency TENS versus NSAIDs:
We found one systematic review (search date 2009, 2 RCTs) in women with primary dysmenorrhoea. One of the included RCTs did not meet Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria (see comment).
Pain
High-frequency TENS compared with NSAIDs High-frequency TENS may be less effective than ibuprofen NSAIDs at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 32 women In review | Proportion of women experiencing pain relief 14/32 (44%) with high-frequency TENS 24/32 (75%) with ibuprofen | OR 0.26 95% CI 0.09 to 0.75 | Moderate effect size | ibuprofen |
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
High-frequency TENS compared with NSAIDs High-frequency TENS may be less effective than ibuprofen NSAIDs at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT Crossover design 3-armed trial | 32 women In review | Proportion of women experiencing pain relief 14/32 (44%) with high-frequency TENS 24/32 (75%) with ibuprofen | OR 0.26 95% CI 0.09 to 0.75 | Moderate effect size | ibuprofen |
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Further information on studies
High-frequency TENS versus low-frequency TENS:One additional RCT, which could not be included in the meta-analysis, found that low-frequency TENS significantly reduced pain compared with high-frequency TENS (P <0.05).
High-frequency TENS versus low-frequency TENS:One additional RCT, which could not be included in the meta-analysis, found that low-frequency TENS significantly reduced pain compared with high-frequency TENS (P <0.05).
High-frequency TENS versus low-frequency TENS:One additional RCT, which could not be included in the meta-analysis, found that low-frequency TENS significantly reduced pain compared with high-frequency TENS (P <0.05).
High-frequency TENS versus NSAIDs:
One RCT (open label, crossover design, 12 women), which did not meet Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria, compared high-frequency TENS versus naproxen and found no significant difference in pain relief between groups. It reported an increase in the number of adverse effects experienced by women with high-frequency TENS compared with naproxen, particularly pain from TENS treatment. The women who reported pain from TENS stated that they were prepared to accept the short-term pain from the treatment in return for relief of dysmenorrhoea.
Substantive changes
TENS New evidence added. Categorisation unchanged (Likely to be beneficial).
Benefits and harms
Vitamin E versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 2002, 2 RCTs) and one subsequent RCT.
Pain
Compared with placebo Vitamin E tablets may be more effective at reducing pain at 2 to 4 months in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT | 100 adolescent women with primary dysmenorrhoea, aged 16 to 18 years In review | Pain assessed by median 10 cm visual analogue scale pain scores 2 months 3.5 cm with vitamin E (500 units/day [about 333 mg], from 2 days before expected menses until the third day of menses) 4.3 cm with placebo | P = 0.02 | Effect size not calculated | vitamin E |
Systematic review | 100 women aged 18 to 21 years Data from 1 RCT | Proportion with improvement in pain 3 months 34/50 (68%) with vitamin E (50 mg three times daily from 10 days before expected menses until the fourth day of menses) 9/50 (18%) with placebo | Significance assessment not performed This RCT may not have been truly randomised (alternate allocation) | ||
RCT | 278 adolescent women with primary dysmenorrhoea aged 15 to 17 years | Median visual analogue scale score at 4 months 0.5 with vitamin E (200 units/day, from 2 days before expected menses until the third day of menses) 6.0 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | vitamin E |
RCT | 278 adolescent women with primary dysmenorrhoea aged 15 to 17 years | Mean pain duration at 4 months 1.6 hours with vitamin E (200 units/day, from 2 days before expected menses until the third day of menses) 17.0 hours with placebo | P <0.0001 | Effect size not calculated | vitamin E |
Further information on studies
None.
Vitamin E versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 2002, 2 RCTs) and one subsequent RCT.
Pain
Compared with placebo Vitamin E tablets may be more effective at reducing pain at 2 to 4 months in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT | 100 adolescent women with primary dysmenorrhoea, aged 16 to 18 years In review | Pain assessed by median 10 cm visual analogue scale pain scores 2 months 3.5 cm with vitamin E (500 units/day [about 333 mg], from 2 days before expected menses until the third day of menses) 4.3 cm with placebo | P = 0.02 | Effect size not calculated | vitamin E |
Systematic review | 100 women aged 18 to 21 years Data from 1 RCT | Proportion with improvement in pain 3 months 34/50 (68%) with vitamin E (50 mg three times daily from 10 days before expected menses until the fourth day of menses) 9/50 (18%) with placebo | Significance assessment not performed This RCT may not have been truly randomised (alternate allocation) | ||
RCT | 278 adolescent women with primary dysmenorrhoea aged 15 to 17 years | Median visual analogue scale score at 4 months 0.5 with vitamin E (200 units/day, from 2 days before expected menses until the third day of menses) 6.0 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | vitamin E |
RCT | 278 adolescent women with primary dysmenorrhoea aged 15 to 17 years | Mean pain duration at 4 months 1.6 hours with vitamin E (200 units/day, from 2 days before expected menses until the third day of menses) 17.0 hours with placebo | P <0.0001 | Effect size not calculated | vitamin E |
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Compared with placebo Vitamin E tablets may be more effective at reducing pain at 2 to 4 months in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT | 100 adolescent women with primary dysmenorrhoea, aged 16 to 18 years In review | Pain assessed by median 10 cm visual analogue scale pain scores 2 months 3.5 cm with vitamin E (500 units/day [about 333 mg], from 2 days before expected menses until the third day of menses) 4.3 cm with placebo | P = 0.02 | Effect size not calculated | vitamin E |
Systematic review | 100 women aged 18 to 21 years Data from 1 RCT | Proportion with improvement in pain 3 months 34/50 (68%) with vitamin E (50 mg three times daily from 10 days before expected menses until the fourth day of menses) 9/50 (18%) with placebo | Significance assessment not performed This RCT may not have been truly randomised (alternate allocation) | ||
RCT | 278 adolescent women with primary dysmenorrhoea aged 15 to 17 years | Median visual analogue scale score at 4 months 0.5 with vitamin E (200 units/day, from 2 days before expected menses until the third day of menses) 6.0 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | vitamin E |
RCT | 278 adolescent women with primary dysmenorrhoea aged 15 to 17 years | Mean pain duration at 4 months 1.6 hours with vitamin E (200 units/day, from 2 days before expected menses until the third day of menses) 17.0 hours with placebo | P <0.0001 | Effect size not calculated | vitamin E |
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Further information on studies
None.
Substantive changes
No new evidence
Benefits and harms
Acupuncture versus placebo acupuncture or no treatment:
We found one systematic review (search date 2008, 2 RCTs) comparing acupuncture versus placebo acupuncture or no treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. The review did not pool the data because of heterogeneity of the RCTs. It did not give information on follow-up or absolute results for the individual RCTs (see further information on studies). We found two subsequent RCTs.
Pain
Compared with placebo acupuncture or no treatment Acupuncture may be more effective than placebo acupuncture or no treatment at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea, but we don't know whether laser acupuncture is more effective than placebo laser acupuncture (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT 4-armed trial | 43 women In review | Proportion of women with reduction in pain of more than half the admission score after 3 months 10/11 (91%) with weekly acupuncture (30–40 minutes) for 3 weeks of each menstrual cycle 4/11 (36%) with placebo acupuncture 1/10 (10%) with monthly medical visits 2/11 (18%) with no medical treatment | P <0.05 for acupuncture v all other treatments | Effect size not calculated | acupuncture |
RCT Crossover design | 201 women with primary or secondary dysmenorrhoea aged 18 years or older, number of women with primary dysmenorrhoea not reported | Average pain intensity after 3 months 3.1 with acupuncture 5.4 with waiting list control | Difference –2.3 P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | acupuncture |
RCT | 48 women with primary dysmenorrhoea, aged 18 to 50 years | Proportion of women with successful pain reduction 3/18 (17%) with laser acupuncture for 3 menstrual cycles (total 8 sessions of 20 minutes each) 6/30 (20%) with placebo laser acupuncture for 3 menstrual cycles (total 8 sessions of 20 minutes each) | OR 1.25 95% CI 0.22 to 8.85 | Not significant |
Quality of life
Compared with placebo acupuncture or no treatment Acupuncture may be more effective than waiting list control at improving some measures of quality of life (assessed by the Short-Form [SF]-36 questionnaire) in women with dysmenorrhoea; however, we don't know about all measures because of baseline differences between groups (low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Acupuncture versus NSAIDs:
We found one systematic review (search date 2008), which found two RCTs comparing acupuncture versus indometacin and one three-armed RCT comparing acupuncture versus placebo or versus ibuprofen (see further information on studies).
Pain
Compared with NSAIDs Acupuncture may be more effective than indometacin at improving pain scores in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Acupuncture versus Chinese herbal medicine:
See option on herbal remedies.
Further information on studies
A meta-analysis could not be carried out because of heterogeneity of the included RCTs in types (acupuncture, acupressure, acupoint injections, and moxibustion) and duration of treatments. None of the 32 included RCTs were considered by the review as high quality, 6 were of average quality, and 26 were of low quality. Only three RCTs reported a sample size calculation, one was double-blind, three RCTs reported intention-to-treat analyses, and the follow-up was >1 year in only 4 of 32 RCTs. The systematic review concluded that because of the small sample sizes of included trials and the poor methodological quality, there is no convincing evidence for acupuncture-related treatments being an effective treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. Acupuncture versus placebo acupuncture or no treatment: The review reported that one RCT (122 women) compared acupuncture versus placebo or versus ibuprofen. It reported that acupuncture significantly improved pain relief compared with placebo. However, this RCT was written in Chinese and we are awaiting full-text translation of this trial and will assess it for inclusion at the next update. Acupuncture versus NSAIDs: The review reported that one RCT (58 women) found no significant difference between auricular acupuncture and indometacin in pain relief. However, it was unclear from the review whether this RCT in fact examined acupuncture or acupressure, and we were unable to access the full text of this RCT. The review reported that another RCT (122 women) found that acupuncture significantly improved pain relief compared with ibuprofen. However, this study was written in Chinese and we are awaiting full-text translation of this study and will assess it for inclusion at the next update.
The waiting list control group subsequently crossed over to receive acupuncture from 3 to 6 months. However, we have reported the pre-crossover results here. The RCT reported that there were no significant baseline differences between groups except for significantly lower scores on the physical component scale, and subscales of physical functioning and bodily pain of the Short-Form (SF)-36 questionnaire with waiting list control compared with acupuncture.
Acupuncture versus placebo acupuncture or no treatment:
We found one systematic review (search date 2008, 2 RCTs) comparing acupuncture versus placebo acupuncture or no treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. The review did not pool the data because of heterogeneity of the RCTs. It did not give information on follow-up or absolute results for the individual RCTs (see further information on studies). We found two subsequent RCTs.
Pain
Compared with placebo acupuncture or no treatment Acupuncture may be more effective than placebo acupuncture or no treatment at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea, but we don't know whether laser acupuncture is more effective than placebo laser acupuncture (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT 4-armed trial | 43 women In review | Proportion of women with reduction in pain of more than half the admission score after 3 months 10/11 (91%) with weekly acupuncture (30–40 minutes) for 3 weeks of each menstrual cycle 4/11 (36%) with placebo acupuncture 1/10 (10%) with monthly medical visits 2/11 (18%) with no medical treatment | P <0.05 for acupuncture v all other treatments | Effect size not calculated | acupuncture |
RCT Crossover design | 201 women with primary or secondary dysmenorrhoea aged 18 years or older, number of women with primary dysmenorrhoea not reported | Average pain intensity after 3 months 3.1 with acupuncture 5.4 with waiting list control | Difference –2.3 P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | acupuncture |
RCT | 48 women with primary dysmenorrhoea, aged 18 to 50 years | Proportion of women with successful pain reduction 3/18 (17%) with laser acupuncture for 3 menstrual cycles (total 8 sessions of 20 minutes each) 6/30 (20%) with placebo laser acupuncture for 3 menstrual cycles (total 8 sessions of 20 minutes each) | OR 1.25 95% CI 0.22 to 8.85 | Not significant |
Daily activities and work
Quality of life
Compared with placebo acupuncture or no treatment Acupuncture may be more effective than waiting list control at improving some measures of quality of life (assessed by the Short-Form [SF]-36 questionnaire) in women with dysmenorrhoea; however, we don't know about all measures because of baseline differences between groups (low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Pain
Compared with placebo acupuncture or no treatment Acupuncture may be more effective than placebo acupuncture or no treatment at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea, but we don't know whether laser acupuncture is more effective than placebo laser acupuncture (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT 4-armed trial | 43 women In review | Proportion of women with reduction in pain of more than half the admission score after 3 months 10/11 (91%) with weekly acupuncture (30–40 minutes) for 3 weeks of each menstrual cycle 4/11 (36%) with placebo acupuncture 1/10 (10%) with monthly medical visits 2/11 (18%) with no medical treatment | P <0.05 for acupuncture v all other treatments | Effect size not calculated | acupuncture |
RCT Crossover design | 201 women with primary or secondary dysmenorrhoea aged 18 years or older, number of women with primary dysmenorrhoea not reported | Average pain intensity after 3 months 3.1 with acupuncture 5.4 with waiting list control | Difference –2.3 P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | acupuncture |
RCT | 48 women with primary dysmenorrhoea, aged 18 to 50 years | Proportion of women with successful pain reduction 3/18 (17%) with laser acupuncture for 3 menstrual cycles (total 8 sessions of 20 minutes each) 6/30 (20%) with placebo laser acupuncture for 3 menstrual cycles (total 8 sessions of 20 minutes each) | OR 1.25 95% CI 0.22 to 8.85 | Not significant |
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Quality of life
Compared with placebo acupuncture or no treatment Acupuncture may be more effective than waiting list control at improving some measures of quality of life (assessed by the Short-Form [SF]-36 questionnaire) in women with dysmenorrhoea; however, we don't know about all measures because of baseline differences between groups (low-quality evidence).
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Acupuncture versus NSAIDs:
We found one systematic review (search date 2008), which found two RCTs comparing acupuncture versus indometacin and one three-armed RCT comparing acupuncture versus placebo or versus ibuprofen (see further information on studies).
Pain
Compared with NSAIDs Acupuncture may be more effective than indometacin at improving pain scores in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Compared with NSAIDs Acupuncture may be more effective than indometacin at improving pain scores in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Acupuncture versus Chinese herbal medicine:
See option on herbal remedies.
Further information on studies
A meta-analysis could not be carried out because of heterogeneity of the included RCTs in types (acupuncture, acupressure, acupoint injections, and moxibustion) and duration of treatments. None of the 32 included RCTs were considered by the review as high quality, 6 were of average quality, and 26 were of low quality. Only three RCTs reported a sample size calculation, one was double-blind, three RCTs reported intention-to-treat analyses, and the follow-up was >1 year in only 4 of 32 RCTs. The systematic review concluded that because of the small sample sizes of included trials and the poor methodological quality, there is no convincing evidence for acupuncture-related treatments being an effective treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. Acupuncture versus placebo acupuncture or no treatment: The review reported that one RCT (122 women) compared acupuncture versus placebo or versus ibuprofen. It reported that acupuncture significantly improved pain relief compared with placebo. However, this RCT was written in Chinese and we are awaiting full-text translation of this trial and will assess it for inclusion at the next update. Acupuncture versus NSAIDs: The review reported that one RCT (58 women) found no significant difference between auricular acupuncture and indometacin in pain relief. However, it was unclear from the review whether this RCT in fact examined acupuncture or acupressure, and we were unable to access the full text of this RCT. The review reported that another RCT (122 women) found that acupuncture significantly improved pain relief compared with ibuprofen. However, this study was written in Chinese and we are awaiting full-text translation of this study and will assess it for inclusion at the next update.
The waiting list control group subsequently crossed over to receive acupuncture from 3 to 6 months. However, we have reported the pre-crossover results here. The RCT reported that there were no significant baseline differences between groups except for significantly lower scores on the physical component scale, and subscales of physical functioning and bodily pain of the Short-Form (SF)-36 questionnaire with waiting list control compared with acupuncture.
A meta-analysis could not be carried out because of heterogeneity of the included RCTs in types (acupuncture, acupressure, acupoint injections, and moxibustion) and duration of treatments. None of the 32 included RCTs were considered by the review as high quality, 6 were of average quality, and 26 were of low quality. Only three RCTs reported a sample size calculation, one was double-blind, three RCTs reported intention-to-treat analyses, and the follow-up was >1 year in only 4 of 32 RCTs. The systematic review concluded that because of the small sample sizes of included trials and the poor methodological quality, there is no convincing evidence for acupuncture-related treatments being an effective treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. Acupuncture versus placebo acupuncture or no treatment: The review reported that one RCT (122 women) compared acupuncture versus placebo or versus ibuprofen. It reported that acupuncture significantly improved pain relief compared with placebo. However, this RCT was written in Chinese and we are awaiting full-text translation of this trial and will assess it for inclusion at the next update. Acupuncture versus NSAIDs: The review reported that one RCT (58 women) found no significant difference between auricular acupuncture and indometacin in pain relief. However, it was unclear from the review whether this RCT in fact examined acupuncture or acupressure, and we were unable to access the full text of this RCT. The review reported that another RCT (122 women) found that acupuncture significantly improved pain relief compared with ibuprofen. However, this study was written in Chinese and we are awaiting full-text translation of this study and will assess it for inclusion at the next update.
A meta-analysis could not be carried out because of heterogeneity of the included RCTs in types (acupuncture, acupressure, acupoint injections, and moxibustion) and duration of treatments. None of the 32 included RCTs were considered by the review as high quality, 6 were of average quality, and 26 were of low quality. Only three RCTs reported a sample size calculation, one was double-blind, three RCTs reported intention-to-treat analyses, and the follow-up was >1 year in only 4 of 32 RCTs. The systematic review concluded that because of the small sample sizes of included trials and the poor methodological quality, there is no convincing evidence for acupuncture-related treatments being an effective treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. Acupuncture versus placebo acupuncture or no treatment: The review reported that one RCT (122 women) compared acupuncture versus placebo or versus ibuprofen. It reported that acupuncture significantly improved pain relief compared with placebo. However, this RCT was written in Chinese and we are awaiting full-text translation of this trial and will assess it for inclusion at the next update. Acupuncture versus NSAIDs: The review reported that one RCT (58 women) found no significant difference between auricular acupuncture and indometacin in pain relief. However, it was unclear from the review whether this RCT in fact examined acupuncture or acupressure, and we were unable to access the full text of this RCT. The review reported that another RCT (122 women) found that acupuncture significantly improved pain relief compared with ibuprofen. However, this study was written in Chinese and we are awaiting full-text translation of this study and will assess it for inclusion at the next update.
The waiting list control group subsequently crossed over to receive acupuncture from 3 to 6 months. However, we have reported the pre-crossover results here. The RCT reported that there were no significant baseline differences between groups except for significantly lower scores on the physical component scale, and subscales of physical functioning and bodily pain of the Short-Form (SF)-36 questionnaire with waiting list control compared with acupuncture.
The waiting list control group subsequently crossed over to receive acupuncture from 3 to 6 months. However, we have reported the pre-crossover results here. The RCT reported that there were no significant baseline differences between groups except for significantly lower scores on the physical component scale, and subscales of physical functioning and bodily pain of the Short-Form (SF)-36 questionnaire with waiting list control compared with acupuncture.
Substantive changes
Acupuncture New evidence added. Categorisation unchanged (Unknown effectiveness). Because of the small sample sizes of included trials and their poor methodological quality, there remains no convincing evidence to assess whether acupuncture-related treatments are an effective treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea.
Benefits and harms
Relaxation treatment versus no treatment/waiting list control:
We found two systematic reviews (search date 2002, 4 RCTs; and search date 2005, 5 RCTs) assessing behavioural interventions in women with dysmenorrhoea. The systematic reviews did not carry out meta-analyses, and so we have reported the one RCT that met Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria (see comment for information on other studies).
Pain
Relaxation treatment compared with waiting list control Relaxation treatment may be more effective at reducing symptoms of dysmenorrhoea in women with spasmodic or congestive dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT 3-armed trial | 69 women with congestive or spasmodic dysmenorrhoea In review | Dysmenorrhoeic symptoms with relaxation treatment plus positive imagery regarding menstruation with waiting list control Absolute results not reported | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | relaxation treatment plus positive imagery regarding menstruation |
RCT 3-armed trial | 69 women with congestive or spasmodic dysmenorrhoea In review | Pain with relaxation treatment plus positive imagery regarding menstruation with self-directed group discussion about menstruation with waiting list control Absolute results not reported | P <0.001 in women with spasmodic dysmenorrhoea | Effect size not calculated | relaxation treatment plus positive imagery regarding menstruation in women with spasmodic dysmenorrhoea |
Further information on studies
In the RCT on relaxation, spasmodic dysmenorrhoea was defined as spasms of pain mainly in the abdomen, and congestive dysmenorrhoea was defined as a dull aching pain in the lower abdomen and other areas of the body. However, the classification of dysmenorrhoea into spasmodic and congestive categories is no longer commonly used and has little meaning.
Relaxation treatment versus no treatment/waiting list control:
We found two systematic reviews (search date 2002, 4 RCTs; and search date 2005, 5 RCTs) assessing behavioural interventions in women with dysmenorrhoea. The systematic reviews did not carry out meta-analyses, and so we have reported the one RCT that met Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria (see comment for information on other studies).
Pain
Relaxation treatment compared with waiting list control Relaxation treatment may be more effective at reducing symptoms of dysmenorrhoea in women with spasmodic or congestive dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT 3-armed trial | 69 women with congestive or spasmodic dysmenorrhoea In review | Dysmenorrhoeic symptoms with relaxation treatment plus positive imagery regarding menstruation with waiting list control Absolute results not reported | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | relaxation treatment plus positive imagery regarding menstruation |
RCT 3-armed trial | 69 women with congestive or spasmodic dysmenorrhoea In review | Pain with relaxation treatment plus positive imagery regarding menstruation with self-directed group discussion about menstruation with waiting list control Absolute results not reported | P <0.001 in women with spasmodic dysmenorrhoea | Effect size not calculated | relaxation treatment plus positive imagery regarding menstruation in women with spasmodic dysmenorrhoea |
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Relaxation treatment compared with waiting list control Relaxation treatment may be more effective at reducing symptoms of dysmenorrhoea in women with spasmodic or congestive dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT 3-armed trial | 69 women with congestive or spasmodic dysmenorrhoea In review | Dysmenorrhoeic symptoms with relaxation treatment plus positive imagery regarding menstruation with waiting list control Absolute results not reported | P <0.01 | Effect size not calculated | relaxation treatment plus positive imagery regarding menstruation |
RCT 3-armed trial | 69 women with congestive or spasmodic dysmenorrhoea In review | Pain with relaxation treatment plus positive imagery regarding menstruation with self-directed group discussion about menstruation with waiting list control Absolute results not reported | P <0.001 in women with spasmodic dysmenorrhoea | Effect size not calculated | relaxation treatment plus positive imagery regarding menstruation in women with spasmodic dysmenorrhoea |
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Further information on studies
In the RCT on relaxation, spasmodic dysmenorrhoea was defined as spasms of pain mainly in the abdomen, and congestive dysmenorrhoea was defined as a dull aching pain in the lower abdomen and other areas of the body. However, the classification of dysmenorrhoea into spasmodic and congestive categories is no longer commonly used and has little meaning.
In the RCT on relaxation, spasmodic dysmenorrhoea was defined as spasms of pain mainly in the abdomen, and congestive dysmenorrhoea was defined as a dull aching pain in the lower abdomen and other areas of the body. However, the classification of dysmenorrhoea into spasmodic and congestive categories is no longer commonly used and has little meaning.
In the RCT on relaxation, spasmodic dysmenorrhoea was defined as spasms of pain mainly in the abdomen, and congestive dysmenorrhoea was defined as a dull aching pain in the lower abdomen and other areas of the body. However, the classification of dysmenorrhoea into spasmodic and congestive categories is no longer commonly used and has little meaning.
Substantive changes
Behavioural interventions New evidence added. Categorisation changed (from Unknown effectiveness to Likely to be beneficial).
Benefits and harms
Combined oral contraceptives versus placebo/no treatment:
We found one systematic review (search date 2008, 6 RCTs) comparing combined oral contraceptives versus placebo/no treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. Two RCTs examined low-dose oestrogen plus progestogen and 4 RCTs examined medium-dose oestrogen plus progestogen.
Pain
Compared with placebo Combined oral contraceptives may be more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Further information on studies
Most of the RCTs identified by the systematic review had weak methodology, including inadequate blinding. RCTs included women with a range of severities of dysmenorrhoea and used different ways of assessing pain or pain relief. Follow-up length and the timing of outcome assessment also differed between RCTs. There was significant statistical heterogeneity in the analysis of proportion of women with pain improvement (I = 64%, P = 0.02). A sensitivity analysis, removing RCTs with inadequate allocation concealment, found that heterogeneity was no longer significant but did not affect the significance of the result.
Combined oral contraceptives versus placebo/no treatment:
We found one systematic review (search date 2008, 6 RCTs) comparing combined oral contraceptives versus placebo/no treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. Two RCTs examined low-dose oestrogen plus progestogen and 4 RCTs examined medium-dose oestrogen plus progestogen.
Pain
Compared with placebo Combined oral contraceptives may be more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Compared with placebo Combined oral contraceptives may be more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Further information on studies
Most of the RCTs identified by the systematic review had weak methodology, including inadequate blinding. RCTs included women with a range of severities of dysmenorrhoea and used different ways of assessing pain or pain relief. Follow-up length and the timing of outcome assessment also differed between RCTs. There was significant statistical heterogeneity in the analysis of proportion of women with pain improvement (I = 64%, P = 0.02). A sensitivity analysis, removing RCTs with inadequate allocation concealment, found that heterogeneity was no longer significant but did not affect the significance of the result.
Most of the RCTs identified by the systematic review had weak methodology, including inadequate blinding. RCTs included women with a range of severities of dysmenorrhoea and used different ways of assessing pain or pain relief. Follow-up length and the timing of outcome assessment also differed between RCTs. There was significant statistical heterogeneity in the analysis of proportion of women with pain improvement (I = 64%, P = 0.02). A sensitivity analysis, removing RCTs with inadequate allocation concealment, found that heterogeneity was no longer significant but did not affect the significance of the result.
Most of the RCTs identified by the systematic review had weak methodology, including inadequate blinding. RCTs included women with a range of severities of dysmenorrhoea and used different ways of assessing pain or pain relief. Follow-up length and the timing of outcome assessment also differed between RCTs. There was significant statistical heterogeneity in the analysis of proportion of women with pain improvement (I = 64%, P = 0.02). A sensitivity analysis, removing RCTs with inadequate allocation concealment, found that heterogeneity was no longer significant but did not affect the significance of the result.
Substantive changes
Contraception (combined oral) New evidence added. Categorisation changed (from Unknown effectiveness to Likely to be beneficial).
Benefits and harms
Fish oil versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 2000, 1 RCT) and one additional RCT, which compared fish oil versus placebo.
Pain
Compared with placebo We don't know whether fish oil is more effective than placebo at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea at 3 months (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 42 women Data from 1 RCT | Menstrual symptom scores with fish oil capsules (twice daily for 1 month) with placebo (twice daily for 1 month) Absolute results not reported | P = 0.04 | Effect size not calculated | fish oil |
RCT 4-armed trial | 78 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Mean reduction in pain scores (measured on a 10 cm visual analogue scale) 0.15 cm with fish oil (0.5–1.0 g five times daily) for a minimum of 3 months 0.19 cm with placebo for a minimum of 3 months | P = 0.62 | Not significant | |
| Additional pain medication | |||||
Systematic review | 42 women Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of tablets of ibuprofen (200 mg) taken 4.7 tablets with fish oil capsules (twice daily for 1 month) 10.1 tablets with placebo (twice daily for 1 month) | P = 0.015 | Effect size not calculated | fish oil |
Adverse effects
Further information on studies
Both RCTs included women with dysmenorrhoea and no additional health problems. This could include women with either primary or secondary dysmenorrhoea.
The results from the RCT identified by the review refer to the average of the two groups after the allocated treatments were crossed over, and should be interpreted with caution, as treatment effects may persist after crossover.
Fish oil versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 2000, 1 RCT) and one additional RCT, which compared fish oil versus placebo.
Pain
Compared with placebo We don't know whether fish oil is more effective than placebo at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea at 3 months (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 42 women Data from 1 RCT | Menstrual symptom scores with fish oil capsules (twice daily for 1 month) with placebo (twice daily for 1 month) Absolute results not reported | P = 0.04 | Effect size not calculated | fish oil |
RCT 4-armed trial | 78 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Mean reduction in pain scores (measured on a 10 cm visual analogue scale) 0.15 cm with fish oil (0.5–1.0 g five times daily) for a minimum of 3 months 0.19 cm with placebo for a minimum of 3 months | P = 0.62 | Not significant | |
| Additional pain medication | |||||
Systematic review | 42 women Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of tablets of ibuprofen (200 mg) taken 4.7 tablets with fish oil capsules (twice daily for 1 month) 10.1 tablets with placebo (twice daily for 1 month) | P = 0.015 | Effect size not calculated | fish oil |
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Compared with placebo We don't know whether fish oil is more effective than placebo at reducing pain in women with dysmenorrhoea at 3 months (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 42 women Data from 1 RCT | Menstrual symptom scores with fish oil capsules (twice daily for 1 month) with placebo (twice daily for 1 month) Absolute results not reported | P = 0.04 | Effect size not calculated | fish oil |
RCT 4-armed trial | 78 women with primary dysmenorrhoea | Mean reduction in pain scores (measured on a 10 cm visual analogue scale) 0.15 cm with fish oil (0.5–1.0 g five times daily) for a minimum of 3 months 0.19 cm with placebo for a minimum of 3 months | P = 0.62 | Not significant | |
| Additional pain medication | |||||
Systematic review | 42 women Data from 1 RCT | Mean number of tablets of ibuprofen (200 mg) taken 4.7 tablets with fish oil capsules (twice daily for 1 month) 10.1 tablets with placebo (twice daily for 1 month) | P = 0.015 | Effect size not calculated | fish oil |
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Further information on studies
Both RCTs included women with dysmenorrhoea and no additional health problems. This could include women with either primary or secondary dysmenorrhoea.
The results from the RCT identified by the review refer to the average of the two groups after the allocated treatments were crossed over, and should be interpreted with caution, as treatment effects may persist after crossover.
Both RCTs included women with dysmenorrhoea and no additional health problems. This could include women with either primary or secondary dysmenorrhoea.
Both RCTs included women with dysmenorrhoea and no additional health problems. This could include women with either primary or secondary dysmenorrhoea.
The results from the RCT identified by the review refer to the average of the two groups after the allocated treatments were crossed over, and should be interpreted with caution, as treatment effects may persist after crossover.
The results from the RCT identified by the review refer to the average of the two groups after the allocated treatments were crossed over, and should be interpreted with caution, as treatment effects may persist after crossover.
Substantive changes
No new evidence
Benefits and harms
Chinese herbal medicine versus placebo/no treatment:
We found one systematic review (search date 2007, 4 RCTs, see further information on studies) and one subsequent RCT.
Pain
Chinese herbal medicine compared placebo/no treatment We don't know whether Chinese herbal remedies are more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Chinese herbal medicine versus NSAIDs:
We found one systematic review (search date 2007, 14 RCTs) comparing Chinese herbal medicine versus conventional treatment (predominantly NSAIDs, see further information on studies).
Pain
Chinese herbal medicine compared with NSAIDs Chinese herbal medicine may be more effective than conventional treatments (predominantly NSAIDs) at improving pain relief and overall symptoms in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Adverse effects
Chinese herbal medicine versus acupuncture:
We found one systematic review (search date 2007, 2 RCTs) comparing Chinese herbal medicine with acupuncture.
Pain
Chinese herbal medicine compared with acupuncture Chinese herbal medicine may be more effective at improving pain relief in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Chinese herbal medicine versus topical heat:
We found one systematic review (search date 2007, 1 RCT) comparing Chinese herbal medicine with heat compression (using a hot-water bottle).
Pain
Chinese herbal medicine compared with topical heat Chinese herbal medicine may be more effective than heat compression (using a hot-water bottle) at improving pain relief in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Chinese herbal medicine versus acupressure:
See option on acupressure.
Iranian herbal medicine versus placebo/no treatment:
We found one RCT comparing Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) and mefenamic acid versus placebo.
Pain
Iranian herbal medicine compared with placebo Iranian herbal medicine seems more effective at reducing pain scores and duration of pain after 2 or 3 months in women with dysmenorrhoea (moderate-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS; scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain) 2 months 3 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 5 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | Iranian herbal medicine |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by VAS (scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain) 3 months 0.5 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 6 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | Iranian herbal medicine |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 2 months 2.3 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 16.2 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | Iranian herbal medicine |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 3 months 2.4 hours with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 15.4 hours with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | Iranian herbal medicine |
Adverse effects
Iranian herbal medicine versus mefenamic acid:
We found one RCT comparing Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) and mefenamic acid versus placebo (see above). The RCT did not present a direct comparison between herbal medicine and mefenamic acid for the outcome of pain.
Pain
Iranian herbal medicine compared with NSAIDs We don't know how effective Iranian herbal medicine and mefenamic acid are, compared with each other, at improving pain relief and duration of pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS; scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain) 2 months 3 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 3.6 with mefenamic acid | Significance not reported | ||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by VAS (scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain) 3 months 0.5 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 2.4 with mefenamic acid | Significance not reported | ||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 2 months 2.3 hours with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 3 hours with mefenamic acid | Significance not reported | ||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 3 months 2.4 hours with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 3 hours with mefenamic acid | Significance not reported |
Adverse effects
Further information on studies
Chinese herbal medicine versus placebo/no treatment: The review did not pool the data for pain relief from three RCTs comparing Chinese herbal medicine versus placebo. However, it reported details of study design and absolute numbers from the included RCTs. It reported that one RCT did not provide data suitable for meta-analysis. The fourth RCT identified by the review compared Chinese herbal medicine (rose tea) versus no treatment. However, this RCT was open label, and so does not fulfil Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria and we have not reported it further. Chinese herbal medicine versus NSAIDs: Conventional treatments included indometacin alone (8 RCTs), indometacin plus vitamin B6 with or without heat (2 RCTs), indometacin plus atropome (1 RCT), ibuprofen (2 RCTs), piroxicam (1 RCT).
Chinese herbal medicine versus placebo/no treatment:
We found one systematic review (search date 2007, 4 RCTs, see further information on studies) and one subsequent RCT.
Pain
Chinese herbal medicine compared placebo/no treatment We don't know whether Chinese herbal remedies are more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Chinese herbal medicine compared placebo/no treatment We don't know whether Chinese herbal remedies are more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Chinese herbal medicine versus NSAIDs:
We found one systematic review (search date 2007, 14 RCTs) comparing Chinese herbal medicine versus conventional treatment (predominantly NSAIDs, see further information on studies).
Pain
Chinese herbal medicine compared with NSAIDs Chinese herbal medicine may be more effective than conventional treatments (predominantly NSAIDs) at improving pain relief and overall symptoms in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Chinese herbal medicine compared with NSAIDs Chinese herbal medicine may be more effective than conventional treatments (predominantly NSAIDs) at improving pain relief and overall symptoms in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Chinese herbal medicine versus acupuncture:
We found one systematic review (search date 2007, 2 RCTs) comparing Chinese herbal medicine with acupuncture.
Pain
Chinese herbal medicine compared with acupuncture Chinese herbal medicine may be more effective at improving pain relief in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Chinese herbal medicine compared with acupuncture Chinese herbal medicine may be more effective at improving pain relief in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (very low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Chinese herbal medicine versus topical heat:
We found one systematic review (search date 2007, 1 RCT) comparing Chinese herbal medicine with heat compression (using a hot-water bottle).
Pain
Chinese herbal medicine compared with topical heat Chinese herbal medicine may be more effective than heat compression (using a hot-water bottle) at improving pain relief in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Chinese herbal medicine compared with topical heat Chinese herbal medicine may be more effective than heat compression (using a hot-water bottle) at improving pain relief in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Chinese herbal medicine versus acupressure:
See option on acupressure.
Iranian herbal medicine versus placebo/no treatment:
We found one RCT comparing Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) and mefenamic acid versus placebo.
Pain
Iranian herbal medicine compared with placebo Iranian herbal medicine seems more effective at reducing pain scores and duration of pain after 2 or 3 months in women with dysmenorrhoea (moderate-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS; scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain) 2 months 3 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 5 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | Iranian herbal medicine |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by VAS (scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain) 3 months 0.5 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 6 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | Iranian herbal medicine |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 2 months 2.3 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 16.2 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | Iranian herbal medicine |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 3 months 2.4 hours with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 15.4 hours with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | Iranian herbal medicine |
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Iranian herbal medicine compared with placebo Iranian herbal medicine seems more effective at reducing pain scores and duration of pain after 2 or 3 months in women with dysmenorrhoea (moderate-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS; scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain) 2 months 3 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 5 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | Iranian herbal medicine |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by VAS (scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain) 3 months 0.5 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 6 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | Iranian herbal medicine |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 2 months 2.3 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 16.2 with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | Iranian herbal medicine |
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 3 months 2.4 hours with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 15.4 hours with placebo | P <0.001 | Effect size not calculated | Iranian herbal medicine |
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Iranian herbal medicine versus mefenamic acid:
We found one RCT comparing Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) and mefenamic acid versus placebo (see above). The RCT did not present a direct comparison between herbal medicine and mefenamic acid for the outcome of pain.
Pain
Iranian herbal medicine compared with NSAIDs We don't know how effective Iranian herbal medicine and mefenamic acid are, compared with each other, at improving pain relief and duration of pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS; scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain) 2 months 3 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 3.6 with mefenamic acid | Significance not reported | ||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by VAS (scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain) 3 months 0.5 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 2.4 with mefenamic acid | Significance not reported | ||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 2 months 2.3 hours with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 3 hours with mefenamic acid | Significance not reported | ||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 3 months 2.4 hours with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 3 hours with mefenamic acid | Significance not reported |
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Iranian herbal medicine compared with NSAIDs We don't know how effective Iranian herbal medicine and mefenamic acid are, compared with each other, at improving pain relief and duration of pain in women with dysmenorrhoea (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS; scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain) 2 months 3 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 3.6 with mefenamic acid | Significance not reported | ||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain scores, assessed by VAS (scale 0–10, higher scores indicating more severe pain) 3 months 0.5 with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 2.4 with mefenamic acid | Significance not reported | ||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 2 months 2.3 hours with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 3 hours with mefenamic acid | Significance not reported | ||
RCT 3-armed trial | 180 women, aged 18 to 30 years, with primary dysmenorrhoea | Pain duration 3 months 2.4 hours with Iranian herbal medicine (highly purified saffron, celery seed, and anise) 3 hours with mefenamic acid | Significance not reported |
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Further information on studies
Chinese herbal medicine versus placebo/no treatment: The review did not pool the data for pain relief from three RCTs comparing Chinese herbal medicine versus placebo. However, it reported details of study design and absolute numbers from the included RCTs. It reported that one RCT did not provide data suitable for meta-analysis. The fourth RCT identified by the review compared Chinese herbal medicine (rose tea) versus no treatment. However, this RCT was open label, and so does not fulfil Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria and we have not reported it further. Chinese herbal medicine versus NSAIDs: Conventional treatments included indometacin alone (8 RCTs), indometacin plus vitamin B6 with or without heat (2 RCTs), indometacin plus atropome (1 RCT), ibuprofen (2 RCTs), piroxicam (1 RCT).
Chinese herbal medicine versus placebo/no treatment: The review did not pool the data for pain relief from three RCTs comparing Chinese herbal medicine versus placebo. However, it reported details of study design and absolute numbers from the included RCTs. It reported that one RCT did not provide data suitable for meta-analysis. The fourth RCT identified by the review compared Chinese herbal medicine (rose tea) versus no treatment. However, this RCT was open label, and so does not fulfil Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria and we have not reported it further. Chinese herbal medicine versus NSAIDs: Conventional treatments included indometacin alone (8 RCTs), indometacin plus vitamin B6 with or without heat (2 RCTs), indometacin plus atropome (1 RCT), ibuprofen (2 RCTs), piroxicam (1 RCT).
Chinese herbal medicine versus placebo/no treatment: The review did not pool the data for pain relief from three RCTs comparing Chinese herbal medicine versus placebo. However, it reported details of study design and absolute numbers from the included RCTs. It reported that one RCT did not provide data suitable for meta-analysis. The fourth RCT identified by the review compared Chinese herbal medicine (rose tea) versus no treatment. However, this RCT was open label, and so does not fulfil Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria and we have not reported it further. Chinese herbal medicine versus NSAIDs: Conventional treatments included indometacin alone (8 RCTs), indometacin plus vitamin B6 with or without heat (2 RCTs), indometacin plus atropome (1 RCT), ibuprofen (2 RCTs), piroxicam (1 RCT).
Ginger versus NSAIDs:
We found one blinded comparative trial (150 women with primary dysmenorrhoea, aged >18 years) comparing ginger rhizome powder (250 mg), mefenamic acid (250 mg), and ibuprofen (400 mg), each taken 4 times a day for 3 days at onset of menstrual periods. Women were alternately allocated into each of the three groups. There were no significant differences between groups in baseline characteristics (P >0.05). A verbal multidimensional scoring system was used to assess the severity of primary dysmenorrhoea after one menstruation. At the end of treatment, severity of dysmenorrhoea decreased in all groups with no differences between the groups in severity of dysmenorrhoea, pain relief, or satisfaction with the treatment (P >0.05). No severe adverse effects were reported.
Substantive changes
Herbal remedies other than toki-shakuyaku-san New evidence added. Categorisation changed (from Unknown effectiveness to Likely to be beneficial).
Benefits and harms
Magnets:
We found no systematic review. We found one RCT (written in Korean); however, we were unable to access the full text of this RCT (see comment).
Further information on studies
None.
Magnets:
We found no systematic review. We found one RCT (written in Korean); however, we were unable to access the full text of this RCT (see comment).
Further information on studies
None.
Substantive changes
No new evidence
Benefits and harms
Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation versus diagnostic laparoscopy:
We found one systematic review (search date 2004) reported in two publications, which examined surgical pelvic nerve interruption for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea. Two RCTs identified by the review compared laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) versus diagnostic laparoscopy for women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Pain
Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation compared with diagnostic laparoscopy We don't know how laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation and diagnostic laparoscopy (control) compare for at reducing pain at 6 months but laparoscopic presacral neurectomy may be more effective at reducing pain at 12 months (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 68 women with primary dysmenorrhoea 2 RCTs in this analysis | Pain relief 6 months' follow-up postoperatively 12/30 (40%) with laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) 11/38 (29%) with diagnostic laparoscopy | OR 1.43 95% CI 0.56 to 3.69 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 68 women with primary dysmenorrhoea 2 RCTs in this analysis | Pain relief 12 months 13/30 (43%) with LUNA 4/38 (11%) with diagnostic laparoscopy | OR 6.12 95% CI 1.78 to 21.03 | Large effect size | LUNA |
Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation versus laparoscopic presacral neurectomy:
We found one systematic review (search date 2004) reported in two publications, which examined surgical pelvic nerve interruption for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea. One RCT identified by the review compared laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) with laparoscopic presacral neurectomy (LPSN).
Pain
Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation compared with presacral neurectomy We don't know how effective laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy are, compared with each other, at reducing pain at up to 6 months. However, laparoscopic presacral neurectomy may be more effective at reducing pain at 12 months (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 68 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Pain relief up to 6 months' follow-up 29/35 (83%) with laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) 29/33 (88%) with laparoscopic presacral neurectomy (LPSN) | OR 0.67 95% CI 0.17 to 2.61 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 68 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Pain relief at 12 months' follow-up 11/35 (31%) with LUNA 27/33 (82%) with LPSN | OR 0.10 95% CI 0.03 to 0.32 | Large effect size | LPSN |
Further information on studies
The review identified 6 additional RCTs that included women with dysmenorrhoea associated with endometriosis or uterine myomas, which is not the focus of this review. Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation versus diagnostic laparoscopy: The review found no significant difference between groups in satisfaction rates at 12 months (1 RCT; 15/18 [83%] with LUNA v 22/32 [69%] with control; P >0.05).
Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation versus diagnostic laparoscopy:
We found one systematic review (search date 2004) reported in two publications, which examined surgical pelvic nerve interruption for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea. Two RCTs identified by the review compared laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) versus diagnostic laparoscopy for women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Pain
Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation compared with diagnostic laparoscopy We don't know how laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation and diagnostic laparoscopy (control) compare for at reducing pain at 6 months but laparoscopic presacral neurectomy may be more effective at reducing pain at 12 months (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 68 women with primary dysmenorrhoea 2 RCTs in this analysis | Pain relief 6 months' follow-up postoperatively 12/30 (40%) with laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) 11/38 (29%) with diagnostic laparoscopy | OR 1.43 95% CI 0.56 to 3.69 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 68 women with primary dysmenorrhoea 2 RCTs in this analysis | Pain relief 12 months 13/30 (43%) with LUNA 4/38 (11%) with diagnostic laparoscopy | OR 6.12 95% CI 1.78 to 21.03 | Large effect size | LUNA |
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation compared with diagnostic laparoscopy We don't know how laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation and diagnostic laparoscopy (control) compare for at reducing pain at 6 months but laparoscopic presacral neurectomy may be more effective at reducing pain at 12 months (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 68 women with primary dysmenorrhoea 2 RCTs in this analysis | Pain relief 6 months' follow-up postoperatively 12/30 (40%) with laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) 11/38 (29%) with diagnostic laparoscopy | OR 1.43 95% CI 0.56 to 3.69 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 68 women with primary dysmenorrhoea 2 RCTs in this analysis | Pain relief 12 months 13/30 (43%) with LUNA 4/38 (11%) with diagnostic laparoscopy | OR 6.12 95% CI 1.78 to 21.03 | Large effect size | LUNA |
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation versus laparoscopic presacral neurectomy:
We found one systematic review (search date 2004) reported in two publications, which examined surgical pelvic nerve interruption for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea. One RCT identified by the review compared laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) with laparoscopic presacral neurectomy (LPSN).
Pain
Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation compared with presacral neurectomy We don't know how effective laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy are, compared with each other, at reducing pain at up to 6 months. However, laparoscopic presacral neurectomy may be more effective at reducing pain at 12 months (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 68 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Pain relief up to 6 months' follow-up 29/35 (83%) with laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) 29/33 (88%) with laparoscopic presacral neurectomy (LPSN) | OR 0.67 95% CI 0.17 to 2.61 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 68 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Pain relief at 12 months' follow-up 11/35 (31%) with LUNA 27/33 (82%) with LPSN | OR 0.10 95% CI 0.03 to 0.32 | Large effect size | LPSN |
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation compared with presacral neurectomy We don't know how effective laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy are, compared with each other, at reducing pain at up to 6 months. However, laparoscopic presacral neurectomy may be more effective at reducing pain at 12 months (low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 68 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Pain relief up to 6 months' follow-up 29/35 (83%) with laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) 29/33 (88%) with laparoscopic presacral neurectomy (LPSN) | OR 0.67 95% CI 0.17 to 2.61 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 68 women with primary dysmenorrhoea Data from 1 RCT | Pain relief at 12 months' follow-up 11/35 (31%) with LUNA 27/33 (82%) with LPSN | OR 0.10 95% CI 0.03 to 0.32 | Large effect size | LPSN |
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Further information on studies
The review identified 6 additional RCTs that included women with dysmenorrhoea associated with endometriosis or uterine myomas, which is not the focus of this review. Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation versus diagnostic laparoscopy: The review found no significant difference between groups in satisfaction rates at 12 months (1 RCT; 15/18 [83%] with LUNA v 22/32 [69%] with control; P >0.05).
The review identified 6 additional RCTs that included women with dysmenorrhoea associated with endometriosis or uterine myomas, which is not the focus of this review. Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation versus diagnostic laparoscopy: The review found no significant difference between groups in satisfaction rates at 12 months (1 RCT; 15/18 [83%] with LUNA v 22/32 [69%] with control; P >0.05).
The review identified 6 additional RCTs that included women with dysmenorrhoea associated with endometriosis or uterine myomas, which is not the focus of this review. Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation versus diagnostic laparoscopy: The review found no significant difference between groups in satisfaction rates at 12 months (1 RCT; 15/18 [83%] with LUNA v 22/32 [69%] with control; P >0.05).
Clinical guide:
The current NICE guidance has stated that evidence on LUNA for chronic pelvic pain suggests that it is not efficacious and therefore should not be used.
Substantive changes
Surgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways Evidence reassessed. Categorisation changed (from Unknown effectiveness to Likely to be ineffective or harmful).
Benefits and harms
Vitamin B12 versus placebo:
We found no systematic review or RCTs.
Further information on studies
None.
Vitamin B12 versus placebo:
We found no systematic review or RCTs.
Further information on studies
None.
Substantive changes
No new evidence
Benefits and harms
Spinal manipulation versus sham manipulation or no treatment:
We found one systematic review (search date 2006, 3 RCTs meeting Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria), which compared spinal manipulation versus placebo or no treatment. The review did not perform a meta-analysis because of heterogeneity among the trials in methods of spinal manipulation used, parts of the spine manipulated, and duration of treatment.
Pain
High-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation compared with placebo manipulation We don't know whether high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation is more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea at 1 month (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 137 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain (as measured by mean change in 100 mm visual analogue scale [VAS] pain score) after 1 menstrual cycle 10.09 with high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation 8.01 with placebo manipulation | WMD +2.08 95% CI –3.20 to +7.36 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 44 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain intensity, as measured by a 10 cm VAS pain score after 1 treatment and 1 menstrual cycle 3.78 with HVLA manipulation 5.19 with placebo manipulation | WMD –1.41 95% CI –2.55 to –0.27 | Effect size not calculated | HVLA manipulation |
Systematic review | 26 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain intensity, assessed on a 10 cm VAS scale at 3 months 5.6 with Toftness manipulation for 3 months 3.4 with placebo manipulation for 3 months | WMD 2.20 95% CI 1.38 to 3.02 | Effect size not calculated | placebo manipulation |
Systematic review | 26 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain intensity, assessed on a 10 cm VAS scale at 6 months 1.7 with Toftness manipulation for 3 months 3.1 with placebo manipulation for 3 months | WMD –1.40 95% CI –2.21 to –0.59 | Effect size not calculated | Toftness manipulation |
Adverse effects
Further information on studies
Two of the three RCTs included in the review had small sample sizes and methodological weaknesses, such as inadequate allocation concealment and lack of blinding of outcome assessors. The study receiving the highest methodological score was also the largest study, and was therefore considered to be the most reliable.
Spinal manipulation versus sham manipulation or no treatment:
We found one systematic review (search date 2006, 3 RCTs meeting Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria), which compared spinal manipulation versus placebo or no treatment. The review did not perform a meta-analysis because of heterogeneity among the trials in methods of spinal manipulation used, parts of the spine manipulated, and duration of treatment.
Pain
High-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation compared with placebo manipulation We don't know whether high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation is more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea at 1 month (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 137 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain (as measured by mean change in 100 mm visual analogue scale [VAS] pain score) after 1 menstrual cycle 10.09 with high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation 8.01 with placebo manipulation | WMD +2.08 95% CI –3.20 to +7.36 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 44 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain intensity, as measured by a 10 cm VAS pain score after 1 treatment and 1 menstrual cycle 3.78 with HVLA manipulation 5.19 with placebo manipulation | WMD –1.41 95% CI –2.55 to –0.27 | Effect size not calculated | HVLA manipulation |
Systematic review | 26 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain intensity, assessed on a 10 cm VAS scale at 3 months 5.6 with Toftness manipulation for 3 months 3.4 with placebo manipulation for 3 months | WMD 2.20 95% CI 1.38 to 3.02 | Effect size not calculated | placebo manipulation |
Systematic review | 26 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain intensity, assessed on a 10 cm VAS scale at 6 months 1.7 with Toftness manipulation for 3 months 3.1 with placebo manipulation for 3 months | WMD –1.40 95% CI –2.21 to –0.59 | Effect size not calculated | Toftness manipulation |
Daily activities and work
Adverse effects
Pain
High-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation compared with placebo manipulation We don't know whether high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation is more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea at 1 month (very low-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Pain | |||||
Systematic review | 137 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain (as measured by mean change in 100 mm visual analogue scale [VAS] pain score) after 1 menstrual cycle 10.09 with high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation 8.01 with placebo manipulation | WMD +2.08 95% CI –3.20 to +7.36 | Not significant | |
Systematic review | 44 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain intensity, as measured by a 10 cm VAS pain score after 1 treatment and 1 menstrual cycle 3.78 with HVLA manipulation 5.19 with placebo manipulation | WMD –1.41 95% CI –2.55 to –0.27 | Effect size not calculated | HVLA manipulation |
Systematic review | 26 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain intensity, assessed on a 10 cm VAS scale at 3 months 5.6 with Toftness manipulation for 3 months 3.4 with placebo manipulation for 3 months | WMD 2.20 95% CI 1.38 to 3.02 | Effect size not calculated | placebo manipulation |
Systematic review | 26 women Data from 1 RCT | Pain intensity, assessed on a 10 cm VAS scale at 6 months 1.7 with Toftness manipulation for 3 months 3.1 with placebo manipulation for 3 months | WMD –1.40 95% CI –2.21 to –0.59 | Effect size not calculated | Toftness manipulation |
Daily activities and work
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Adverse effects
Further information on studies
Two of the three RCTs included in the review had small sample sizes and methodological weaknesses, such as inadequate allocation concealment and lack of blinding of outcome assessors. The study receiving the highest methodological score was also the largest study, and was therefore considered to be the most reliable.
Two of the three RCTs included in the review had small sample sizes and methodological weaknesses, such as inadequate allocation concealment and lack of blinding of outcome assessors. The study receiving the highest methodological score was also the largest study, and was therefore considered to be the most reliable.
Two of the three RCTs included in the review had small sample sizes and methodological weaknesses, such as inadequate allocation concealment and lack of blinding of outcome assessors. The study receiving the highest methodological score was also the largest study, and was therefore considered to be the most reliable.
Substantive changes
No new evidence
Benefits and harms
Intrauterine progestogens:
We found one systematic review (search date 2005), which found no RCTs examining the effectiveness of intrauterine progestogens in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (see comment).
Further information on studies
None.
Intrauterine progestogens:
We found one systematic review (search date 2005), which found no RCTs examining the effectiveness of intrauterine progestogens in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (see comment).
Further information on studies
None.
Substantive changes
Progestogens (intrauterine) New option added. Categorised as Unknown effectiveness as we found no RCTs to assess its effects in women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Abstract
Introduction
Dysmenorrhoea may begin soon after the menarche, after which it often improves with age, or it may originate later in life after the onset of an underlying causative condition. Dysmenorrhoea is common, and in up to 20% of women it may be severe enough to interfere with daily activities.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for primary dysmenorrhoea? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to January 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 35 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupressure, acupuncture, aspirin, behavioural interventions, contraceptives (combined oral), fish oil, herbal remedies, magnets, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, progestogens (intrauterine), spinal manipulation, surgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways, thiamine, toki-shakuyaku-san, topical heat, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), vitamin B12, and vitamin E.
Key Points
Dysmenorrhoea may begin soon after the menarche, where it often improves with age, or may originate later in life after the onset of an underlying causative condition.
Dysmenorrhoea is very common, and in up to 20% of women it may be severe enough to interfere with daily activities.
Dysmenorrhoea is more likely in women who smoke, and those with an earlier age at menarche or longer duration of menstruation.
NSAIDs reduce moderate to severe pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea compared with placebo, but we don't know whether any one NSAID is superior to the others.
Simple analgesics such as aspirin and paracetamol may reduce pain in the short term, although few studies have been of good quality.
The herbal remedies toki-shakuyaku-san and Iranian herbal remedy (saffron, celery, and anise) may reduce pain compared with placebo. We don't know whether Chinese herbal remedies are beneficial compared with placebo, but we found limited evidence that they may be effective compared with other treatments for dysmenorrhoea.
Thiamine and vitamin E may reduce pain compared with placebo in young women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Combined oral contraceptives may be more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea compared with placebo; however, few trials have been of good quality.
Topical heat (about 39 °C) may be as effective as ibuprofen and more effective than paracetamol at reducing pain.
High-frequency transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) may reduce pain compared with sham TENS, but seems to be less effective than ibuprofen.
Acupressure may be more effective than sham acupressure or no treatment at relieving dysmenorrhoea.
Spinal manipulation may be no more effective than placebo at reducing pain after 1 month in women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Relaxation may be better than no treatment at relieving dysmenorrhoea.
We don't know whether acupuncture, fish oil, vitamin B12, magnets, or intrauterine progestogens reduce dysmenorrhoea.
Surgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways is not beneficial in treating dysmenorrhoea, and may be associated with adverse effects including constipation.
We initially allocate 4 points to evidence from RCTs, and 2 points to evidence from observational studies. To attain the final GRADE score for a given comparison, points are deducted or added from this initial score based on preset criteria relating to the categories of quality, directness, consistency, and effect size. Quality: based on issues affecting methodological rigour (e.g., incomplete reporting of results, quasi-randomisation, sparse data [<200 people in the analysis]). Consistency: based on similarity of results across studies. Directness: based on generalisability of population or outcomes. Effect size: based on magnitude of effect as measured by statistics such as relative risk, odds ratio, or hazard ratio.
Glossary
Notes
Disclaimer
The information contained in this publication is intended for medical professionals. Categories presented in Clinical Evidence indicate a judgement about the strength of the evidence available to our contributors prior to publication and the relevant importance of benefit and harms. We rely on our contributors to confirm the accuracy of the information presented and to adhere to describe accepted practices. Readers should be aware that professionals in the field may have different opinions. Because of this and regular advances in medical research we strongly recommend that readers' independently verify specified treatments and drugs including manufacturers' guidance. Also, the categories do not indicate whether a particular treatment is generally appropriate or whether it is suitable for a particular individual. Ultimately it is the readers' responsibility to make their own professional judgements, so to appropriately advise and treat their patients. To the fullest extent permitted by law, BMJ Publishing Group Limited and its editors are not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, products liability or otherwise) whether they be direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential, resulting from the application of the information in this publication.
Notes
Endometriosis
Contributor Information
Pallavi Manish Latthe, Birmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Rita Champaneria, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Summary
NSAIDs reduce moderate to severe pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea compared with placebo, but we don't know whether any one NSAID is superior to the others.
It remains unclear from direct comparisons which NSAIDs have better safety. The harms of NSAIDs include gastrointestinal ulceration and haemorrhage for traditional NSAIDs and, for at least some of the COX-2 inhibitors, increased cardiovascular risk.
Summary
Acupressure may be more effective than sham acupressure or no treatment at relieving dysmenorrhoea.
Summary
Simple analgesics such as aspirin and paracetamol may reduce pain in the short term, although few studies have been of good quality.
NOTE: A drug safety alert has been issued by the Food Drug Administration (FDA) on the risk of rare but serious skin reactions with paracetamol (acetaminophen).
Summary
Thiamine may reduce pain compared with placebo in young women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Summary
The herbal remedy toki-shakuyaku-san may reduce pain compared with placebo.
Summary
Topical heat (about 39 °C) may be as effective as ibuprofen and more effective than paracetamol at reducing pain.
Summary
High-frequency transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) may reduce pain compared with sham TENS, but seems to be less effective than ibuprofen.
Summary
Vitamin E may reduce pain compared with placebo in young women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Summary
We don't know whether acupuncture reduces dysmenorrhoea.
Summary
Relaxation may be better than no treatment at relieving dysmenorrhoea.
Summary
Combined oral contraceptives may be more effective at reducing pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea compared with placebo; however, few trials have been of good quality.
Summary
We don't know whether fish oil reduces dysmenorrhoea.
Summary
Iranian herbal remedy (saffron, celery, and anise) may reduce pain compared with placebo. We don't know whether Chinese herbal remedies are beneficial compared with placebo, but we found limited evidence that they may be effective compared with other treatments for dysmenorrhoea.
Summary
We don't know whether magnets reduce dysmenorrhoea.
Summary
Surgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways is not beneficial in treating dysmenorrhoea, and may be associated with adverse effects including constipation.
Laparoscopic presacral neurectomy has been associated with constipation and advanced laparoscopic skills are needed to perform the procedure.
Summary
We don't know whether vitamin B 12 reduces dysmenorrhoea.
Summary
Spinal manipulation may be no more effective than placebo at reducing pain after 1 month in women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
Summary
We don't know whether intrauterine progestogens reduce dysmenorrhoea.
References
- 1. Fraser IProstaglandins, prostaglandin inhibitors and their roles in gynaecological disorders. Bailliere's Clinical Obstet Gynaecol 1992;6:829–857. [[PubMed]
- 2. Zondervan KT, Yudkin PL, Vessey MP, et alThe prevalence of chronic pelvic pain in the United Kingdom: a systematic review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:93–99. [[PubMed]
- 3. Harlow SD, Campbell OMEpidemiology of menstrual disorders in developing countries: a systematic review. BJOG 2004;111:6–16. [[PubMed]
- 4. Latthe P, Latthe M, Gulmezoglu M, et alWHO systematic review of prevalence of chronic pelvic pain: a neglected reproductive health morbidity. BMC Public Health 2006;6:177.
- 5. Latthe P, Mignini L, Gray R, et alFactors predisposing women to chronic pelvic pain: systematic review. BMJ 2006;332:749–755.
- 6. Sundell G, Milsom I, Andersch BFactors influencing the prevalence and severity of dysmenorrhoea in young women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:588–594. [[PubMed]
- 7. Marjoribanks J, Proctor ML, Farquhar C. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for primary dysmenorrhoea. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2003. [[PubMed]
- 8. Mehlisch DR, Ardia A, Pallotta TAnalgesia with ibuprofen arginate versus conventional ibuprofen for patients with dysmenorrhea: a crossover trial. Curr Ther Res 2003:64;327–337.
- 9. Malmstrom K, Kotey P, Cichanowitz N, et alAnalgesic efficacy of etoricoxib in primary dysmenorrhea: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2003;56:65–69. [[PubMed]
- 10. Daniels S, Gitton X, Zhou W, et alEfficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib 200 mg once daily for treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: results from two randomized controlled trials. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2008;17:423–437. [[PubMed]
- 11. Daniels S, Robbins J, West CR, et alCelecoxib in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: results from two randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, crossover studies. Clin Ther 2009;31:1192–1208. [[PubMed]
- 12. Nahid K, Fariborz M, Ataolah G, et alThe effect of an Iranian herbal drug on primary dysmenorrhea: a clinical controlled trial. J Midwifery Womens Health 2009;54:401–404. [[PubMed]
- 13. de Mello NR, Baracat EC, Tomaz G, et alDouble-blind study to evaluate efficacy and safety of meloxicam 7.5 mg and 15 mg versus mefenamic acid 1500 mg in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004;83:667–673. [[PubMed]
- 14. Ylikorkala O, Puolakka J, Kauppila AComparison between naproxen tablets and suppositories in primary dysmenorrhea. Prostaglandins 1980;20:463–468. [[PubMed]
- 15. Zhu X, Proctor M, Bensoussan A, et al. Chinese herbal medicine for primary dysmenorrhoea. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2007. [PubMed]
- 16. Yang H, Liu CZ, Chen X, et alSystematic review of clinical trials of acupuncture-related therapies for primary dysmenorrhea. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008;87:1114–1122. [[PubMed]
- 17. Taylor D, Miaskowski C, Kohn JA randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of an acupressure device (relief brief) for managing symptoms of dysmenorrhea. J Altern Complement Med 2002;8:357–370. [[PubMed]
- 18. Pouresmail Z, Ibrahimzadeh REffects of acupressure and ibuprofen on the severity of primary dysmenorrhea. J Tradit Chin Med 2002;22:205–210. [[PubMed]
- 19. Wu RD, Zhang HD, Lin LF, et alObservation on ear point taping and pressing therapy for treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu 2007;27:815–817. [In Chinese] [[PubMed]
- 20. Zhang WY, Li Wan Po AEfficacy of minor analgesics in primary dysmenorrhoea: a systematic review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:780–789. [[PubMed]
- 21. Proctor ML, Murphy PA. Herbal and dietary therapies for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2000. [PubMed]
- 22. Akin MD, Weingand KW, Hengehold DA, et alContinuous low-level topical heat in the treatment of dysmenorrhea. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:343–349. [[PubMed]
- 23. Akin M, Price W, Rodriguez G Jr, et alContinuous, low-level, topical heat wrap therapy as compared to acetaminophen for primary dysmenorrhea. J Reprod Med 2004;49:739–745. [[PubMed]
- 24. Proctor ML, Smith CA, Farquhar CM, et al. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for primary dysmenorrhoea. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2009. [PubMed]
- 25. Wang S-F, Lee JP, Hwa H-L, et alEffect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on primary dysmenorrhea. Neuromodulation 2009;12:302–309. [[PubMed]
- 26. Hedner N, Milsom I, Eliasson T, et alTENS is effective in painful menstruation. Lakartidningen 1996;93:1219–1222. [In Swedish] [[PubMed]
- 27. Dawood MY, Ramos JTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized crossover comparison with placebo TENS and ibuprofen. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:656–660. [[PubMed]
- 28. Fugh-Berman A, Kronenberg FComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in reproductive-age women: a review of randomized controlled trials. Reprod Toxicol 2003:17;137–152. Search date 2002. [[PubMed]
- 29. Ziaei S, Zakeri M, Kazemnejad AA randomised controlled trial of vitamin E in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea. BJOG 2005;112:466–469. [[PubMed]
- 30. Ziaei S, Faghihzadeh S, Sohrabvand F, et alA randomised placebo-controlled trial to determine the effect of vitamin E in treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea. BJOG 2001;108:1181–1183. [[PubMed]
- 31. Witt CM, Reinhold T, Brinkhaus B, et alAcupuncture in patients with dysmenorrhea: a randomized study on clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in usual care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:166–168. [[PubMed]
- 32. Kempf D, Berger D, Ausfeld-Hafter BLaser needle acupuncture in women with dysmenorrhoea: a randomised controlled double blind pilot trial. Forsch Komplementarmed 2009;16:6–12. [In German] [[PubMed]
- 33. Helms JMAcupuncture for the management of primary dysmenorrhea. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69:51–56. [[PubMed]
- 34. Zhi LXRandomized controlled study on superficial needling for treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu 2007;27:18–21. [In Chinese] [[PubMed]
- 35. Proctor M, Murphy PA, Pattison HM, et al. Behavioural interventions for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2005. [PubMed]
- 36. Chesney MA, Tasto DLThe effectiveness of behavior modification with spasmodic and congestive dysmenorrhea. Behav Res Ther 1975;13:245–253. [[PubMed]
- 37. Israel RG, Sutton M, O'Brien KFEffects of aerobic training on primary dysmenorrhea symptomatology in college females. J Am Coll Health 1985;33:241–244. [[PubMed]
- 38. Amodei N, Nelson RO, Jarrett RB, et alPsychological treatments of dysmenorrhea: differential effectiveness for spasmodics and congestives. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 1987;18:95–103. [[PubMed]
- 39. Wong CL, Farquhar C, Roberts H, et al. Oral contraceptive pill for primary dysmenorrhoea. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2008. [PubMed]
- 40. Deutch B, Jorgensen EB, Hansen JCMenstrual discomfort in Danish women reduced by dietary supplements of omega-3 PUFA and B12 (fish oil or seal oil capsules). Nutr Res 2000;20:621–631. [PubMed]
- 41. Yeh LL, Liu JY, Lin KS, et alA randomised placebo-controlled trial of a traditional Chinese herbal formula in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea. PLoS ONE 2007;2:e719.
- 42. Tseng YF, Chen CH, Yang YHRose tea for relief of primary dysmenorrhea in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial in Taiwan. J Midwifery Womens Health 2005;50:e51–e57. [[PubMed]
- 43. Ozgoli G, Goli M, Moattar FComparison of effects of ginger, mefenamic acid, and ibuprofen on pain in women with primary dysmenorrhea. J Altern Complement Med 2009;15:129–132. [[PubMed]
- 44. Kim KS, Lee YJThe effect of magnetic application for primary dysmenorrhea. Kanhohak Tamgu 1994;3:148–173. [In Korean] [[PubMed]
- 45. Proctor ML, Latthe P, Farquhar CM, et al. Surgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2004. [[PubMed]
- 46. Latthe PM, Proctor ML, Farquhar CM, et alSurgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways in dysmenorrhea: a systematic review of effectiveness. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007;86:4–15. [[PubMed]
- 47. Daniels J, Gray R, Hills RK, et alLaparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation for alleviating chronic pelvic pain: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;302:955–961. [[PubMed]
- 48. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) for chronic pelvic pain. October 2007. Interventional procedure guidance 234. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/IPG234 (last accessed 1 February 2011). [PubMed]
- 49. Proctor ML, Hing W, Johnson TC, et al. Spinal manipulation for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2006. [PubMed]
- 50. Varma R, Sinha D, Gupta JK, et alNon-contraceptive uses of levonorgestrel-releasing hormone system (LNG-IUS) - a systematic enquiry and overview. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;125:9–28. [[PubMed]
- 51. Baldaszti E, Wimmer-Puchinger B, Loschke K, et alAcceptability of the long-term contraceptive levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena): a 3-year follow-up study. Contraception 2003;67:87–91. [[PubMed]
- 52. Rosenwaks Z, Jones GS, Henzl MR, et al. Naproxen sodium, aspirin, and placebo in primary dysmenorrhoea. Reduction of pain and blood levels of prostaglandin-F2-alpha metabolite. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;140:592–598. [[PubMed]