Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30870284›Full record

ArticleObstetrics and gynecology2019

Importance of Estimated Blood Loss in Resource Utilization and Complications of Hysterectomy for Benign Indications.

Emily M English, Sarah Bell, Neil S Kamdar, Carolyn W Swenson, Hallie Wiese, Daniel M Morgan

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Electrosurgical Devices Used During Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Trends of Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy: Five Years of Experience.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Emily M EnglishDepartments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Emergency Medicine, and Surgery, University of Michigan, the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, and the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Sarah Bell
Neil S Kamdar
Carolyn W Swenson
Hallie Wiese
Daniel M Morgan
Twitter (United States) · US

Funding

University of Michigan WRHR Career Development ProgramK12HD065257 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI FENNER, DEE ELLEN · 2010 to 2019
$3.4M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD065257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify the variation in estimated blood loss at the time of hysterectomy for benign indications and to analyze how blood loss is associated with measures of resource utilization and complications.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study and analyzed hysterectomy for benign indications at hospitals in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative between January 1, 2013, and May 30, 2015. A sensitivity analysis was performed to identify how estimated blood loss was associated with measures of utilization (transfusion, readmission, reoperation, and length of stay) and postoperative complications. A hierarchical logistic regression model was used to identify patient level factors independently associated with estimated blood loss greater than 400 mL and to calculate a risk- and reliability-adjusted rate for each hospital.

resultsThere were 18,033 hysterectomies for benign indications from 61 hospitals included for analysis. The median estimated blood loss was 100 mL, and the 90th percentile estimated blood loss was 400 mL. A sensitivity analysis demonstrated increased risks of transfusion, readmission, reoperation, length of stay, and major postoperative complications with estimated blood loss greater than 400 mL. The proportion of hysterectomies at hospitals in the collaborative with estimated blood loss greater than 400 mL ranged from 3.5% to 16.9% after risk and reliability adjustments. The risk factors with the highest adjusted odds for estimated blood loss greater than 400 mL included abdominal surgery compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.8, CI 2.3-3.5), surgical time longer than 3 hours (aOR 3.9, CI 3.3-4.5), and specimen weight greater than 250 g compared with less than 100 g (aOR 4.8, CI 3.9-5.8). Adhesive disease, low surgeon volume, being younger than 40 years of age, having a body mass index greater than 35, and the need for a preoperative transfusion were also statistically significantly associated with estimated blood loss greater than 400 mL.

conclusionThere is fivefold variation in the hospital rate of hysterectomies with an estimated blood loss greater than 400 mL (90th percentile)-a threshold associated with significantly higher rates of health care utilization and complications. Avoidance of abdominal hysterectomy when possible may reduce intraoperative blood loss and associated sequelae.

Indexed as

AdultBlood Loss, SurgicalBlood TransfusionBody Mass IndexCohort StudiesFemaleGenital Diseases, FemaleHumansHysterectomyLength of StayMiddle AgedOperative TimePatient ReadmissionPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30870284
PMCPMC6485959
OpenAlexW2924303727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.