Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15976422›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005

Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Neil Johnson, David Barlow, Anne Lethaby, Emma Tavender, Liz Curr, Ray Garry

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04886791 (Vaginal Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Assisted NOTES Hysterectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 85 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
28.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04886791 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Vaginal Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Assisted NOTES Hysterectomy (VANH): a Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorZuyderland Medisch CentrumRan2021 to 2025Enrolled124ConditionsHysterectomy, Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery, Vaginal HysterectomyArmsVaginal NOTES hysterectomy, Vaginal hysterectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

85 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 434 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  8. Hysterectomy versus hysterectomy plus oophorectomy for premenopausal women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Neil JohnsonUniversity of Auckland, National Women's Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Auckland Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. n.johnson@auckland.ac.nz
David Barlow
Anne Lethaby
Emma Tavender
Liz Curr
Ray Garry
University of Auckland · NZJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBThe University of Western Australia · AUUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the most appropriate surgical method of hysterectomy (abdominal, vaginal, or laparoscopic) for women with benign disease.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and Biological Abstracts. SELECTION OF STUDIES: Only randomised controlled trials were selected; participants had to have benign gynaecological disease; interventions had to comprise at least one hysterectomy method compared with another; and trials had to report primary outcomes (time taken to return to normal activities, intraoperative visceral injury, and major long term complications) or secondary outcomes (operating time, other immediate complications of surgery, short term complications, and duration of hospital stay).

results27 trials (total of 3643 participants) were included. Return to normal activities was quicker after vaginal than after abdominal hysterectomy (weighted mean difference 9.5 (95% confidence interval 6.4 to 12.6) days) and after laparoscopic than after abdominal hysterectomy (difference 13.6 (11.8 to 15.4) days), but was not significantly different for laparoscopic versus vaginal hysterectomy (difference -1.1 (-4.2 to 2.1) days). There were more urinary tract injuries with laparoscopic than with abdominal hysterectomy (odds ratio 2.61 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 5.60)), but no other intraoperative visceral injuries showed a significant difference between surgical approaches. Data were notably absent for many important long term patient outcome measures, where the analyses were underpowered to detect important differences, or they were simply not reported in trials.

conclusionsSignificantly speedier return to normal activities and other improved secondary outcomes (shorter duration of hospital stay and fewer unspecified infections or febrile episodes) suggest that vaginal hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy where possible. Where vaginal hysterectomy is not possible, laparoscopic hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy, although it brings a higher chance of bladder or ureter injury.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansHysterectomyIntraoperative ComplicationsLaparoscopyLength of StayRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeUrinary Tract

Identifiers

PMID15976422
PMCPMC558455
OpenAlexW1993515378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.