Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27146592›Full record

ReviewDeutsches Arzteblatt international2016

Hysterectomy for Benign Uterine Disease.

Klaus J Neis, Wolfgang Zubke, Mathias Fehr, Thomas Römer, Karl Tamussino, Monika Nothacker

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Leveraging artificial intelligence for evidence-based recommendations in uterine fibroid therapy: Addressing the unmet need in German healthcare-A clinical trial.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Klaus J NeisDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Saarland University Medical Center, Germany, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tübingen University Hospital, Germany, Cantonal Hospital, Frauenfeld, Switzerland, Evangelisches Krankenhaus, Köln-Weyertal, Germany, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Graz, Austria, AWMF Institute of Medical Knowledge Management, c/o Philipps University Marburg, Germany.
Wolfgang Zubke
Mathias Fehr
Thomas Römer
Karl Tamussino
Monika Nothacker
Association of the Scientific Medical Societies · DEKlinik für Frauenheilkunde · DEPhilipps University of Marburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHysterectomy is the second most common operation in obstetrics and gynecology after Cesarean section. Until now, there has not been any German clinical guideline with recommendations concerning the indications for hysterectomy for benign uterine conditions, in consideration of the available uterus-preserving alternative treatments.

methodsWe systematically searched the Medline database in 2013, in 2014, and in December 2015, focusing on aggregate evidence, and assessed the retrieved literature. The guideline recommendations were developed by a consensus process with structured independent moderation.

results30 systematic reviews and 8 randomized controlled trials were analyzed. Among the study patients treated with either hysterectomy (by any technique) or an organ-preserving alternative, at least 75-94% were satisfied with their treatment. Vaginal hysterectomy was associated with lower complication rates, shorter procedure duration, and more rapid recovery than abdominal hysterectomy and is therefore the preferred technique. If vaginal hysterectomy is not possible, a laparoscopic approach should be considered. Abdominal hysterectomy should be reserved for special indications. In 2012, the frequency of abdominal hysterectomy in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland was lower than elsewhere in the world, at 15.7% , 28.0% , and 23.9% , respectively. Uterus-preserving techniques were associated with higher reintervention rates compared to hysterectomy (11-36% vs 4-10% ).

conclusionThe main objective is to reduce the frequency of abdominal hysterectomy. Patients should be counseled and made aware of uterus-sparing alternatives to hysterectomy so that they are able to make informed decisions.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleGermanyGynecologyHumansHysterectomyMiddle AgedObstetricsTreatment OutcomeUterine DiseasesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27146592
PMCPMC4985519
OpenAlexW2469036486

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.