Observational studyJAMA2018
Association of Hysteroscopic vs Laparoscopic Sterilization With Procedural, Gynecological, and Medical Outcomes.
Observational study in JAMA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing options for females seeking permanent contraception in high resource countries: a systematic review.Reproductive health · 2021Pooled it
- Care Pathways and Determinants in Essure® Contraceptive Implant Use and Removal: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- First-Trimester mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination and Risk of Major Congenital Anomalies.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Vasectomy Procedures on the Rise in France From 2010 to 2022.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2025Article
- Is there a future for hysteroscopic sterilisation?Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2024Article
- Article
- Legal medicine aspects of female sterilization: our experience.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- JAK inhibitors and risk of major cardiovascular events or venous thromboembolism: a self-controlled case series study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Association of Statins for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases With Hospitalization for COVID-19: A Nationwide Matched Population-Based Cohort Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
- A modified self-controlled case series method for event-dependent exposures and high event-related mortality, with application to COVID-19 vaccine safety.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
- Routine surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic: A French nationwide cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Intravitreal anti-VEGF use in France: a cross-sectional and longitudinal Nationwide observational study.Acta ophthalmologica · 2022Observational
- Effectiveness of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1-S vaccines against severe covid-19 outcomes in a nationwide mass vaccination setting: cohort study.BMJ medicine · 2022Article
- Chronic diseases, health conditions and risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization and in-hospital mortality during the first wave of the epidemic in France: a cohort study of 66 million people.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2021Article
- Antihypertensive Drugs and COVID-19 Risk: A Cohort Study of 2 Million Hypertensive Patients.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2021Observational
- Results of the Insertion of Hysteroscopic Sterilization Devices in a Brazilian Public Hospital.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2020Article
- Use of proton pump inhibitors in adults in France: a nationwide drug utilization study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
- Risk of Hematologic Malignant Neoplasms after Postoperative Treatment of Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the Incidence of Hematologic Malignant Neoplasms Among Breast Cancer Survivors in France.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Is There a Cardiotoxicity Associated With Metallic Head Hip Prostheses? A Cohort Study in the French National Health Insurance Databases.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Safety of hysteroscopic sterilization has been recently questioned following reports of general symptoms such as allergy, tiredness, and depression in addition to associated gynecological results such as pelvic pain, perforation of fallopian tubes or uterus, and unwanted pregnancy. Objective: To compare the risk of reported adverse events between hysteroscopic and laparoscopic sterilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: French nationwide cohort study using the national hospital discharge database linked to the health insurance claims database. Women aged 30 to 54 years receiving a first hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization between 2010 and 2014 were included and were followed up through December 2015. Exposures: Hysteroscopic sterilization vs laparoscopic sterilization. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risks of procedural complications (surgical and medical) and of gynecological (sterilization failure that includes salpingectomy, second sterilization procedure, or pregnancy; pregnancy; reoperation) and medical outcomes (all types of allergy; autoimmune diseases; thyroid disorder; use of analgesics, antimigraines, antidepressants, benzodiazepines; outpatient visits; sickness absence; suicide attempts; death) that occurred within 1 and 3 years after sterilization were compared using inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox models. Results: Of the 105 357 women included (95.5% of eligible participants; mean age, 41.3 years [SD, 3.7 years]), 71 303 (67.7% ) underwent hysteroscopic sterilization, and 34 054 (32.3%) underwent laparoscopic sterilization. During the hospitalization for sterilization, risk of surgical complications for hysteroscopic sterilization was lower: 0.13% for hysteroscopic sterilization vs 0.78% for laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted risk difference [RD], -0.64; 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.60) and was lower for medical complications: 0.06% vs 0.11% (adjusted RD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01). During the first year after sterilization, 4.83% of women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization had a higher risk of sterilization failure than the 0.69% who underwent laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 7.11; 95% CI, 5.92 to 8.54; adjusted RD, 4.23 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 3.40 to 5.22). Additionally, 5.65% of women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization required gynecological reoperation vs 1.76% of women who underwent laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted HR, 3.26; 95% CI, 2.90 to 3.67; adjusted RD, 4.63 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 3.38 to 4.75); these differences persisted after 3 years, although attenuated. Hysteroscopic sterilization was associated with a lower risk of pregnancy within the first year of the procedure but was not significantly associated with a difference in risk of pregnancy by the third year (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83-1.30; adjusted RD, 0.01 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.07). Risks of medical outcomes were not significantly increased with hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization. Conclusions and Relevance: Among women undergoing first sterilization, the use of hysteroscopic sterilization was significantly associated with higher risk of gynecological complications over 1 year and over 3 years than was laparoscopic sterilization. Risk of medical outcomes was not significantly increased over 1 year or over 3 years. These findings do not support increased medical risks associated with hysteroscopic sterilization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.