ArticleBMJ open2020
Prior surgical uterine evacuation of pregnancy and infertility: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of uterine cavity manipulation history on clinical and neonatal outcomes forAmerican journal of translational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrior surgical uterine evacuation is associated with an increased risk of infertility. However, findings are inconsistent, highlighting the need for a clear consensus on the effect of prior surgical uterine evacuation on the risk of infertility. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarise the available evidence examining the association between prior surgical uterine evacuation and the risk of infertility. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search of electronic databases (ie, PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE and ScienceDirect) will be conducted since their inception until October 2019 with no limit for language using a detailed prespecified search strategy. Both the authors will independently screen titles and abstracts and select full-text articles, perform data extraction and appraise the quality of included studies using a bias classification tool. Meta-analyses will be performed to calculate the overall pooled estimates using the generic inverse variance method. This systematic review and meta-analysis will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Given that this is a protocol based on published data, there is no requirement for ethics approval. It is anticipated that the dissemination of results will be reported according to the PRISMA statement. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019117266.
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.