ACOG Recommends Pain Treatments, Lots of Facts, No $$$
In a more complete discussion of what this might mean is a discussion on the medical news site.
For those with full access to the site can read the entire meno, which does warrent much more comment on as we go farther. There are many excellent points, and the "bottom line" is that they have established a pain management performance measure (what we can self evaluate ourselves with) of: "Percentage of patients with suspected endometriosis receiving OC therapy for pain management before more advanced therapies". The information also makes clear that medical therapies are not suitable for those pursing pregnancy immediately as they all suppress ovulation (don't be fooled, not all of these therapies are 'approved' for contraceptive efficacy' however). But as usual, the in-depth reporting leaves all $ out of the equation of treatment. So in these days of rising deductibles, and debates on cost effectiveness, why do we not discuss this. Now, to play a bit of devil's advocate here...OCs are typically cost effective, yes, they are. But as for the rest of the discussions...surgeries, long term medications, risks of complications, risks of recurrences, these things all have real life costs to a patient and for the individual provider and patient to have a realistic discussion, we are in real need of that data creeping into the medical literature. I know, your mother told you to never gab about sex, religion or money, but really, now, is this not the 21st century!