Progestins and medical treatment of endometriosis - physiology, history and society
other
OA: closed
public-domain-us
Abstract
The transitory effect of hormonal treatment is the alleged main reason to criticize progestins (PGS) and combined pills (OP) in the managment of endometriosis. To the contrary their poor efficacy in the long run is often underlined. As a result, medical treatment is too seldom advised in endometriosis. In this article, we shall focus on the analysis of the reasons of the paucity of the medical interest given to progestins, reasons, which are not of a scientific or objective nature. The ultimate aim of this analysis is to develop arguments in favour of continuous administration of hormones as to obtain not simply an anovulation but a state of prolonged amenorrhea much more efficacious than the simple suppression of ovulation too often advised. And, with an emphasis on the fundamental role of surgery in the treatment of endometriosis, to give the greatest consideration to the specific nature of this disease, which is a chronic disease, justifying the long duration of hormonal administration.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Condition tags
MeSH descriptors
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.
Source provenance
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-08-14T06:11:53.302379+00:00
- pubmed
- last seen: 2026-05-13T22:13:53.633898+00:00
- unpaywall
- last seen: 2026-05-14T19:30:52.867331+00:00
License: public-domain-us
· commercial use OK
· attribution required
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine