ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2021
Systematic review, meta-analysis and statistical analysis of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy vs. endometrial ablation
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effect of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) with endometrial ablation (EA) in terms of general and menstrual-related quality of life in women opting for surgical treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding. Material and Methods: Sources searched included PubMed, Cochrane library, Scopus, and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials. Main outcomes of interest included: quality of life assessed using medical outcomes survey short form-36 (SF-36), (SF-12), operation time, time from operation to discharge, pain, fever, and hemoglobin level. Screening and data extraction were performed independently and the analysis was conducted using Review Manager Software v5.4.1. Results: Four clinical trials were included. Results of SF-12 score showed that there was no significant difference between the LSH and EA groups for either mental or physical component score overall mean difference (MD): -4.15 (-16.01, 7.71; p=0.49) and MD: 2.67 (-0.37, 5.71; p=0.08), respectively. Subgroup analysis of the SF-36 showed that only two components, general health and social function, were significantly improved in the LSH group (p<0.01) while the other six sub-scores did not differ between groups. The overall MD significantly favored the EA group for: operation time [MD: 72.65 (35.48, 109.82; p=0.0001)], time from operation to discharge [MD: 13.61 (3.21, 24.01; p=0.01)], hemoglobin level outcome [MD: 0.57 (0.40, 0.74); p<0.01], and pain score [standardized MD: 0.46 (0.32, 0.60; p<0.01)]. Conclusion: LSH has better outcomes for quality of life. This includes patient indicated responses to social health, general health, and superior hemoglobin levels at all measured points postoperatively. EA, however, was consistently associated with less operative time, a shorter hospital stay and is also considered by the authors to be a more minimally invasive technique which can also result in satisfying outcomes.
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.