Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32565821›Full record

ReviewObstetrics and gynecology international2020

Nonpuerperal Uterine Inversion: What the Gynaecologists Need to Know?

R P Herath, M Patabendige, M Rashid, P S Wijesinghe

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Obstetrics and gynecology international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Nonpuerperal Uterine Inversion.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R P HerathDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7209-2512
M PatabendigeUniversity Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, Teaching Hospital, Mahamodara, Galle, Sri Lanka.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4092-7092
M RashidSidra Medicine, Doha, Qatar.
P S WijesingheDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka.
University of Kelaniya · LK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNonpuerperal uterine inversion (NPUI) is a rare clinical problem with diagnostic and surgical challenges. The objective of our study was to review the literature on NPUI and describe causative pathologies, diagnosis, and different surgical options available for treatment. MATERIALS AND

methodsA comprehensive literature review was carried out on MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases to look for NPUI using the term "non-puerperal uterine inversion," and further went through the cross-references of the published articles. Data are published case reports from 1911 to September 2018. Of the 153 published cases, 133 reports had adequate details of surgery for analysis. These reports were analyzed, concerning the clinical presentation, methods of diagnosis, and surgical treatment.

resultsMean age of the women was 46.3 years (standard deviation: 18,

conclusionsFibroids were the commonest cause for NPUI. Malignancies accounted for one-third of cases. A combined abdominal and vaginal approach, followed by hysterectomy or repair after repositioning, seems to be better for nonmalignant cases.

Identifiers

PMID32565821
PMCPMC7285247
OpenAlexW3033689427

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.