Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24592061›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2013

Pipelle endometrial sampling versus conventional dilatation & curettage in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding.

Ibrahim Anwar Abdelazim, Amro Aboelezz, Amr Fathy Abdulkareem

RetractedOpen access · diamondAbstract readRetracted Publication
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Severe adenomyosis with unexpectedly high CA-125: report of a rare case.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Retraction · 2025-03-12Duplication of/in Article · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Original Data and/or Images not Provided and/or not Available · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · · İbrahim Anwar Abdelazim aka İbrahim A Abdelazim
  • Retracted
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ibrahim Anwar AbdelazimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt ; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ahmadi Hospital, Ahmadi, Kuwait.
Amro AboelezzDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Al-azhar University Maternity Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Al-azhar University, Cairo, Egypt ; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ahmadi Hospital, Ahmadi, Kuwait.
Amr Fathy AbdulkareemDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt ; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ahmadi Hospital, Ahmadi, Kuwait.
Ain Shams University · EGAl-Azhar University · EGAmiri Hospital · KW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study was designed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of Pipelle endometrial sampling with conventional dilatation & curettage in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. MATERIAL AND

methodsOne hundred and forty patients with abnormal uterine bleeding were included in this comparative study; where endometrial sampling was carried out before cervical dilatation by Pipelle device followed by conventional dilatation & curettage (D&C). The histopathology report of the Pipelle sample was compared with that of the dilatation & curettage sample and the dilatation & curettage reports were considered as the gold standard.

results100% of the samples obtained by conventional D&C, while 97.9% of the samples obtained by the Pipelle device were adequate for histopathological examination. The histolopathological examination of 140 samples obtained by conventional D&C revealed proliferative endometrium in 37 specimens, secretory endometrium in 33 specimens, endometrial hyperplasia in 49 specimens (45 without atypia & 4 with atypia), endometritis in 8 specimens, endometrial polyps in 3 specimens and malignant endometrium in 10 specimens. In this study; the Pipelle device had 100% sensitivity, 100% specificity and 100% accuracy for diagnosing endometrial hyperplasia, endometrial carcinoma, proliferative and secretory endometrium. Also, it had 88.9% sensitivity, and 99.2% negative predictive value (NPV) and 99.3% accuracy for diagnosing endometritis and it had 60% sensitivity, 89.6% NPV and 98.6% accuracy for diagnosing endometrial polyps.

conclusionThe endometrial sampling using Pipelle is a safe, accurate, cost effective outpatient procedure, which avoids general anesthesia and has a high sensitivity and specificity for detection of endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial malignancy.

Indexed as

Abnormaldilatation & curettageendometrial samplingPipelleuterine bleeding

Identifiers

PMID24592061
PMCPMC3881726
OpenAlexW2088810906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.