Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33297354›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Hysterectomy by Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) Compared to Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Indications.

Susanne Housmans, Nargis Noori, Supuni Kapurubandara, Jan J A Bosteels, Laura Cattani, Ibrahim Alkatout, Jan Deprest, Jan Baekelandt

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07413861 (Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic), which is not on this map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT07413861 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic (vNOTE) Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Suspension

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of Texas Health Science Center, HoustonRan2026 to 2027Enrolled50ConditionsProlapse Pelvic, HysterectomyArmsUterosacral suspension, Hysterectomy by vNOTES approach
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Susanne HousmansDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Nargis NooriDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead 2145, Australia.
Supuni KapurubandaraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead 2145, Australia.
Jan J A BosteelsDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-2373-6868
Laura CattaniDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-5232-3619
Ibrahim AlkatoutKiel School of Gynaecological Endoscopy, Department of Gynaecologiy and Obstetrics, University Hospitals Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, 24105 Kiel, Germany.
Jan DeprestDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Jan BaekelandtDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BEImelda Hospital · BEThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEWestmead Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Objective: We aimed to report an update of the systematic review and meta-analysis by Baekelandt et al. (2016). (2) Method: We followed PRISMA guidelines to perform this systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and additional sources and aimed to retrieve randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and prospective/retrospective cohort studies in human subjects that allowed direct comparison of vNOTES to laparoscopy. (3) Results: Our search yielded one RCT and five retrospective cohort trials. Pooled analysis of two subgroups showed that, compared to conventional laparoscopy, vNOTES is equally effective to successfully remove the uterus in individuals meeting the inclusion criteria. vNOTES had significantly lower values for operation time, length of stay and estimated blood loss. There was no significant difference in intra- and postoperative complications, readmission, pain scores at 24 h postoperative and change in hemoglobin (Hb) on day 1 postoperative.

Indexed as

hysterectomylaparoscopymeta-analysisminimally invasiveNOTESsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33297354
PMCPMC7762322
OpenAlexW3112817504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.