WHEL-C-083 · Emerging evidence · 5/10

oral contraceptives for endometriosis

In a single pilot study, oral contraceptives alone significantly reduced chronic pelvic pain and deep dyspareunia in endometriosis patients during and after treatment.

Origin · Existing drug · repurposing candidatePathway · 505(b)(2) · existing active ingredient, new indicationEvidence arm · Direct researchEvidence supports

How to read thisThe summary above and the proposed mechanism are generated by the model from the sources it ingested, and are written as the model’s reasoning rather than established fact. Any figure quoted from MATRIX is a model-derived association score, not a clinical measurement. How far the published record backs this pair is carried by the score’s own rigor dimension and traced to verbatim sources at the foot of the page.

Hypothesized mechanism

Oral contraceptives suppress cyclical ovarian hormonal stimulation of ectopic endometrial tissue, reducing endometriosis-related pain.

This is the model’s proposed mechanism from the sources on file, not a demonstrated causal pathway. How well the published record supports it is reflected in the rigor and plausibility dimensions of the score, and traced to the verbatim sources at the foot of the page.

How the score was reached, for this pair

The composite score is the sum of five dimensions, each scored 0 to 2 by the model from the evidence on file. Below is the sub-score this specific pair received on each, with what that dimension measures. It scored 5 of 10 overall, a emerging reading, from a direct rated emerging in strength.

The model’s overall reasoning for this pair is the summary at the top of the page, and the mechanism it proposed is in the section above.

Direct research arm · anchors the headline5.0 / 10 · Emerging

Scored for women. Evidence generated in women (female population, ~100% female). (band F1, ×1.00).

Corroboration

All three claims derive from a single source, described in its own title as a 'pilot study.' There is no independent replication, and a single small primary study scores 0.

0 / 2

Rigor

The source is a pilot study comparing letrozole plus OCs versus OCs alone, indicating a small comparative trial rather than a large RCT or meta-analysis. Small trial/pilot design merits a score of 1.

1 / 2

Specificity

Both the intervention (oral contraceptives) and condition (endometriosis-related pain) are named directly in the claims and source title, with specific outcomes (chronic pelvic pain, deep dyspareunia).

2 / 2

Plausibility

Oral contraceptives plausibly reduce endometriosis pain by suppressing ovarian hormonal stimulation of ectopic endometrial tissue, but the claims report only clinical outcomes (pain scores) and do not present mechanistic evidence, so the mechanism is plausible but not evidenced here.

1 / 2

Consistency

Evidence comes from a single study, so direction of effect cannot be cross-checked against independent sources; per the n/a rule a single study is scored 1. Within the study, pain and dyspareunia outcomes are consistently positive.

1 / 2

How the scoring rubric works, in general →

Layers not covered for this pair

Sex-specific pharmacokineticsNone on file

Not covered for this pair. This layer holds documented sex-specific pharmacokinetics for a limited set of drugs, and this compound is not among them yet. A blank here means the drug is not covered by the layer, not that no sex difference exists.

More on the sex-specific pharmacokinetics layer and its sources →

Cycle-phase dependenceNone on file

Not covered for this pair. The cycle-phase layer is seeded for the strongest-evidence cases so far (PMDD), and this pair is not among them yet. A blank here means the pair is not covered by the layer, not that the effect was found to be phase-independent.

More on the cycle-phase layer and its sources →

Source evidence · what the pipeline ingested

These are the sources the pipeline ingested to detect and score this signal, the published literature the model actually read, each tagged by study type. Where the model combined findings the claim is marked as a synthesis (S), and where the literature disagrees the contradiction is shown (!).

Every source below belongs to this signal’s evidence arm, Direct research. Whel reads each drug-condition pair through four such arms, each held to its own inclusion bar; a signal is surfaced through one of them.

1the intensity of chronic pelvic pain continued to decrease during treatment and at 1-month after treatment it was significantly lower than at 6-month follow-up and baseline level both in LE + oral contraceptives group (Mean ± SD,1.5 ± 1.4) and in oral contraceptives alone group PubMed · PMID 32936010 ↗
2The intensity of chronic pelvic pain and deep dyspareunia was significantly decrease at both 1-month after treatment and 6-month follow-up. PubMed · PMID 32936010 ↗
3The intensity of chronic pelvic pain and deep dyspareunia was significantly decrease at both 1-month after treatment and 6-month follow-up. PubMed · PMID 32936010 ↗

These are the verbatim sources the pipeline surfaced and read; they may not be the full published record for a pair, and the score reflects the strength and agreement of the evidence rather than its volume. The strength of these source types is what the rigor dimension of the score reads off. MATRIX, sex-specific pharmacokinetics, and cycle phase are separate layers the pipeline does not ingest, external cross-references reported beside the score, and they link to their own sources in their sections above.

The primary sources and pipelines this evidence is drawn from →

← Back to the full index