Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29368658›Full record

ArticleTrials2018

HEALTH: laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus second-generation endometrial ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Kevin Cooper, Kirsty McCormack, Suzanne Breeman, Jessica Wood, Neil W Scott, Justin Clark, Jed Hawe, Robert Hawthorn, Kevin Phillips, Angela Hyde and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: Experiences and Learnings From Patient Survey.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Kevin CooperNHS Grampian, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill Road, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZN, UK. kevin.cooper@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1486-0071
Kirsty McCormackCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Suzanne BreemanCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Jessica WoodCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Neil W ScottMedical Statistics Team, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Justin ClarkBirmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Mindelsohn Way, Birmingham, B15 2TG, UK.
Jed HaweCountess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Countess of Chester Health Park, Liverpool Road, Chester, CH2 1UL, UK.
Robert HawthornNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Southern General Hospital, 1345 Govan Road, Glasgow, G51 4TF, UK.
Kevin PhillipsHull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Castle Hill Hospital, Castle Road, Cottingham, HU16 5JQ, UK.
Angela HydeRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Women's Network, Regent's Park, London, NW1 4RG, UK.
Alison McDonaldCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Mark ForrestCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Samantha WilemanCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Graham ScotlandHealth Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
John NorrieMedical Statistics and Trial Methodology, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Little France Road, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX, UK.
Siladitya BhattacharyaNHS Grampian, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill Road, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZN, UK.
HEALTH Study Group
University of Aberdeen · GBRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBAberdeen Royal Infirmary · GBHull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HERU1Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Department of Health 12/35/23National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme 12/35/23
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem affecting approximately 1.5 million women in England and Wales with a major impact on their physical, emotional, social and material quality of life. It is the fourth most common reason why women attend gynaecology outpatient clinics and accounts for one-fifth of all gynaecology outpatient referrals. Initial treatment in primary care is medical - either by means of oral or injected medication or the levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (Mirena®). If medical treatment fails then surgical treatment can be offered, either endometrial ablation (EA), which destroys the lining of the cavity of the uterus (endometrium), or hysterectomy, i.e. surgical removal of the uterus. While effective, conventional hysterectomy is invasive and carries a risk of complications due to injury to other pelvic structures. The procedure can be simplified and complications minimised by undertaking a 'supracervical' hysterectomy where the cervix is left in situ and only the body of the uterus removed. Recent advances in endoscopic technologies have facilitated increased use of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) which can be performed as a day-case procedure and is relatively easy for the surgeon to learn. HEALTH (Hysterectomy or Endometrial AbLation Trial for Heavy menstrual bleeding) aims to address the question 'Is LASH superior to second generation EA for the treatment of HMB in terms of clinical and cost effectiveness?' METHODS/

designWomen aged < 50 years, with HMB, in whom medical treatment has failed and who are eligible for EA will be considered for trial entry. We aim to recruit women from approximately 30 active secondary care centres in the UK NHS who carry out both surgical procedures. All women who consent will complete a diary of pain symptoms from day 1 to day 14 after surgery, postal questionnaires at six weeks and six months after surgery and 15 months post randomisation. Healthcare utilisation questions will also be completed at the six-week, six-month and 15-month time-points. DISCUSSION: Measuring the comparative effectiveness of LASH vs EA will provide the robust evidence required to determine whether the new technique should be adopted widely in the NHS.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN49013893 . Registered on 28 January 2014.

Indexed as

Endometrial Ablation TechniquesLaparoscopyMenstruationFemaleHumansHysterectomyMenorrhagiaMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomEndometrial ablation techniquesHeavy menstrual bleedingHysterectomyLaparoscopicRandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID29368658
PMCPMC5784594
OpenAlexW2786805275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.