03/06/2026
Not all “meta-analyses” are automatically high-quality science.
A recent paper comparing Dienogest vs combined oral contraceptive pills in deep endometriosis concludes that Dienogest performs better for pain suppression. While the direction of the findings may align with existing literature, the methodology behind the paper deserves closer scrutiny.
Some important concerns:
• Extremely high heterogeneity (I² approaching 80–90%)
• Mixing randomized trials with observational and retrospective studies
• Several studies classified as high risk of bias
• Poor standardization of surgery prior to postoperative medical therapy
Perhaps the biggest issue?
The paper does not adequately define the quality or completeness of surgery performed before hormonal suppression.
In advanced endometriosis, this changes everything.
A patient with:
• residual bowel disease,
• untreated parametrial disease,
• fibrosis around nerves,
• or incomplete excision
cannot be scientifically compared with someone who underwent complete multidisciplinary excision surgery.
Pain suppression does not equal disease eradication.
Dienogest absolutely has a role in carefully selected patients:
• symptom suppression,
• postoperative management,
• delaying surgery in selected cases,
• adenomyosis symptom control,
• fertility preservation strategies.
But no medical therapy should be interpreted as a replacement for proper excision surgery in advanced disease.
Scientific literacy matters.
Not all:
• guidelines,
• publications,
• or meta-analyses
carry the same scientific weight.
In endometriosis research, methodology matters just as much as conclusions.
ExcisionSurgery Gynecology WomensHealth EvidenceBasedMedicine MedicalEducation