ArticlePloS one2019
The surgical treatment of idiopathic abnormal uterine bleeding: An analysis of 88 000 patients from the French exhaustive national hospital discharge database from 2009 to 2015.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endometriosis treatment pathways in the largest private health insurance in Brazil: A real-world data study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Clinical analysis of 2152 cases of abnormal uterine bleeding treated by NovaSure endometrial ablation.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of the study was to compare success rates, complications and management costs of different surgical techniques for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).
methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of the French national hospital discharge database. All hospital stays with a diagnostic code for AUB and an appropriate surgical procedure code between 2009 and 2015 inclusive were identified, concerning 109,884 women overall. Outcomes were compared between second generation procedures (2G surgery), first-generation procedures (1G surgery), curettage and hysterectomy. Clinical outcomes were treatment failure and complications during the follow-up period. Costs were attributed using standard French hospital tariffs.
results7,863 women underwent a 2G procedure (7.2%), 39,935 a 1G procedure, (36.3%), 38,923 curettage (35.4%) and 23,163 hysterectomy (21.1%). Failure rates at 18 months were 9.9% for 2G surgery, 12.7% for 1G surgery, 20.6% for curettage and 2.8% for hysterectomy. Complication rates at 18 months were 1.9% for 2G surgery, 1.5% for 1G surgery, 1.4% for curettage and 5.3% for hysterectomy. Median 18-month costs were € 1 173 for 2G surgery, € 1 059 for 1G surgery, € 782 for curettage and € 3 090 for hysterectomy.
conclusionCurettage has the highest failure rate. Hysterectomy has the lowest failure rate but the highest complication rate and is also the most expensive. Despite good clinical outcomes and relatively low cost, 1G and 2G procedures are not widely used. Current guidelines for treatment of AUB are not respected, the recommended 2G procedures being only used in <10% of cases.
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.