ArticleObstetrics and gynecology international2018
Gynecologists May Underestimate the Amount of Blood Loss during Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.
Article in Obstetrics and gynecology international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of influential factors in laparoscopic myomectomy and estimation of hidden blood loss.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- A retrospective study of 323 total laparoscopic hysterectomy cases for various indications and a case report treating caesarean scar pregnancy.Journal of medical case reports · 2020Article
- Analysis of hidden blood loss and its influential factors in myomectomy.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe considered the possibility of underestimation of the amount of bleeding during laparoscopic surgery, and we investigated comparing the amount of bleeding between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery by considering the concentration of hemoglobin before and after surgery as indicators.
methodsThe following procedures were included: A, surgery for ovarian tumor; B, myomectomy; and C, hysterectomy either by laparoscopic surgery or open surgery. Patients who underwent the above procedures in between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were enrolled. We identified 1749 cases (A: 90, B: 105, and C: 325 of open surgery and A: 667, B: 437, and C: 125 of laparoscopic surgery). We considered the sum as an estimation of blood loss during surgery and the change in the value of hemoglobin in laboratory testing one day before and after surgery.
resultsDuring laparoscopic surgery, the measurements of blood loss included the following: A: 59.8 ml; B: 168.6 ml; and C: 206.8 ml. During open surgery, measurements of blood loss included the following: A: 130.7 ml; B: 236.7 ml; and C; 280.9 ml. The reduction of hemoglobin after surgery compared with that before surgery was less in laparoscopic surgery than that in open surgery in A and B; however, this reduction was not significantly different in C.
conclusionOur results suggest that the estimation of the bleeding in A and B was appropriate; however, the estimation might be underestimated in C during laparoscopic surgery.
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.