ArticlePloS one2019
Endometrial ablation; less is more? Historical cohort study comparing long-term outcomes from two time periods and two treatment modalities for 854 women.
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, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of Life, Anxiety and Depression in Women Treated with Hysteroscopic Endometrial Resection or Ablation for Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Pooled it
- Hysteroscopic Endometrial Ablation: From Indications to Instrumentation and Techniques-A Call to Action.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbnormal uterine bleeding needs surgical treatment if medical therapy fails. After introduction of non-hysteroscopic endometrial ablation as alternative to hysteroscopic endometrial resection, we aimed to compare short and long-term outcomes for women treated with these two minimally-invasive procedures. A secondary goal was comparing the present cohort to a previous cohort of women treated with hysteroscopic resection only. MATERIALS AND
methodsHistorical cohort study of women treated for abnormal uterine bleeding with hysteroscopic resection or endometrial ablation at Haukeland University Hospital during 2006-2014. Similar patient file and patient-reported outcome data were collected from 386 hysteroscopic resections in a previous cohort (1992-1998). Categorical variables were compared by Chi-square or Fisher´s Exact-test, linear variables by Mann-Whitney U-test and time to hysterectomy by the Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsDuring 2006-2014, 772 women were treated with endometrial resection or ablation, 468 women (61%) consented to study-inclusion; 333 women (71%) were treated with hysteroscopic resection and 135 (29%) with endometrial ablation. Preoperative characteristics were significantly different for women treated with hysteroscopic resection compared to endometrial ablation in the 2006-2014-cohort and between the two time-cohorts regarding menopausal, sterilization and myoma status (p≤0.036). The endometrial ablation group had significantly shorter operation time, median 13 minutes (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 12-14) and a lower complication rate (2%) versus operation time, median 25 minutes (95% CI 23-26) and complication rate (13%) in the hysteroscopy group, all p ≤0.001. The patient-reported rate of satisfaction with treatment was equivalent in both groups (85%, p = 0.955). The endometrial ablation group had lower hysterectomy rate (8% vs 16%, p = 0.024). Patient-reported satisfaction rate was higher (85%) in the 2006-2014-cohort compared with the 1992-1998-cohort (73%), p<0.001.
conclusionsEndometrial ablation has similar patient satisfaction rate, but shorter operation time and lower complication rate and may be a good alternative to hysteroscopic resection for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding.
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.