Is Scientific Medical Literature Related to Endometriosis Treatment Evidence-Based? A Systematic Review on Methodological Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials

Abstract

Background and objectives: Informed decision-making requires the ability to identify and integrate high-quality scientific evidence in daily practice. We aimed to assess whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on endometriosis therapy follow methodological criteria corresponding to the RCTs’ specific level in the hierarchy of evidence in such details to allow the reproduction and replication of the study. Materials and Methods: Using the keywords “therapy” and “endometriosis” and “efficacy” three bibliographic databases were searched for English written scientific articles published from 1 January 2008 to 3 March 2018. Only the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were evaluated in terms of whether they provided the appropriate level of scientific evidence, equivalent to level 1, degree 1b in the hierarchy of evidence. A list of criteria to ensure study replication and reproduction, considering CONSORT guideline and MECIR standards, was developed and used to evaluate RCTs’ methodological soundness, and scores were granted. Three types of bias, namely selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), and attrition bias (incomplete outcome data) were also evaluated. Results: We found 387 articles on endometriosis therapy, of which 38 were RCTs: 30 double-blinded RCTs and 8 open-label RCTs. No article achieved the maximum score according to the evaluated methodological criteria. Even though 73.3% of the double-blinded RCTs had clear title, abstract, introduction, and objectives, only 13.3% provided precise information regarding experimental design and randomization, and also showed a low risk of bias. The blinding method was poorly reported in 43.3% of the double-blinded RCTs, while allocation concealment and random sequence generation were inadequate in 33.3% of them. Conclusions: None of the evaluated RCTs met all the methodological criteria, none had only a low risk of bias and provided sufficient details on methods and randomization to allow for the reproduction and replication of the study. Consequently, the appropriate level of scientific evidence (level 1, degree 1b) could not be granted. On endometriosis therapy, this study evaluated the quality of reporting in RCTs and not the quality of how the studies were performed.

Behind the French controversy over the medical treatment of Covid-19: The role of the drug industry

“…Clinical trials are financed and carried out overwhelmingly by them, sometimes at the request of national agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration in the USA. It is in this political-industrial movement that evidence-based medicine and its statistical methods of randomization have been established, giving the illusion of a mathematical demonstration that cannot be falsified (Capraş et al., 2019). 1 The principle is to substitute statistical calculation for clinical experience, mathematical demonstration for medical practice.…”

Stepwise Approach to the Management of Endometriosis-Related Dysmenorrhea

“…Endometriosis treatment remains one of the most controversial topics in gynecology, due in part to a lack of knowledge about the pathogenesis and natural history of endometriosis, as well as limited highquality data to guide individual care. 34 Medical management is often used to treat the symptom of dysmenorrhea, but surgery is necessary to definitely diagnose the disease, and can also improve symptoms. 10,35 Our study found that all sequential medical then surgical treatment pathways are cost effective in the treatment of endometriosis when compared with proceeding immediately to surgery.…”

Is it the Ideal Time to Start Prescribing Cannabis Derivatives to Treat Endometriosis-associated Pain?

“…Additionally, there are serious limitations in the interpretation of clinical trials. 8 Accordingly, evidence on the best therapeutic regimens has not yet been established. 9 Other clinical options exist, but the cost, side effects, and similarity of results compared with hormonal contraceptives give them limited utility.…”