We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Efficacy of progesterone and progestogens in management of premenstrual syndrome: systematic review.
BMJ : British Medical Journal 2001 October 7
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of progesterone and progestogens in the management of premenstrual syndrome.
DESIGN: Systematic review of published randomised, placebo controlled trials.
STUDIES REVIEWED: 10 trials of progesterone therapy (531 women) and four trials of progestogen therapy (378 women).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of women whose symptoms showed improvement with progesterone preparations (suppositories and oral micronised). Proportion of women whose symptoms showed improvement with progestogens. Secondary analysis of efficacy of progesterone and progestogens in managing physical and behavioural symptoms.
RESULTS: Overall standardised mean difference for all trials that assessed efficacy of progesterone (by both routes of administration) was -0.028 (95% confidence interval -0.017 to -0.040). The odds ratio was 1.05 (1.03 to 1.08) in favour of progesterone, indicating no clinically important difference between progesterone and placebo. For progestogens the overall standardised mean was -0.036 (-0.014 to -0.060), which corresponds to an odds ratio of 1.07 (1.03 to 1.11) showing a statistically, but not clinically, significant improvement for women taking progestogens.
CONCLUSION: The evidence from these meta-analyses does not support the use of progesterone or progestogens in the management of premenstrual syndrome.
DESIGN: Systematic review of published randomised, placebo controlled trials.
STUDIES REVIEWED: 10 trials of progesterone therapy (531 women) and four trials of progestogen therapy (378 women).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of women whose symptoms showed improvement with progesterone preparations (suppositories and oral micronised). Proportion of women whose symptoms showed improvement with progestogens. Secondary analysis of efficacy of progesterone and progestogens in managing physical and behavioural symptoms.
RESULTS: Overall standardised mean difference for all trials that assessed efficacy of progesterone (by both routes of administration) was -0.028 (95% confidence interval -0.017 to -0.040). The odds ratio was 1.05 (1.03 to 1.08) in favour of progesterone, indicating no clinically important difference between progesterone and placebo. For progestogens the overall standardised mean was -0.036 (-0.014 to -0.060), which corresponds to an odds ratio of 1.07 (1.03 to 1.11) showing a statistically, but not clinically, significant improvement for women taking progestogens.
CONCLUSION: The evidence from these meta-analyses does not support the use of progesterone or progestogens in the management of premenstrual syndrome.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app