Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33889855›Full record

ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2021

Colorectal endometriosis: ample data without definitive recommendations.

G N Moawad, J S Klebanoff, N Habib, S Bendifallah

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Diagnosis of Bowel Endometriosis Using Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Aspiration.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2023
    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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

G N MoawadDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
J S KlebanoffDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Main Line Health, Wynewood, PA.
N HabibDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Francois Quesnay Hospital, Mantes-la-Jolie, France.
S BendifallahDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hopitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Sorbonne University, France.
George Washington University · USHôpital Tenon · FRMain Line Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The preoperative work-up and optimal surgical approach to colorectal endometriosis is a highly studied topic lacking definitive recommendations. Synthesis of the available data can be extremely challenging for surgeons due to the heterogeneity of existing comparisons, a variety of studied surgical outcomes, and a predominant focus on operative complications. While these considerations are extremely important for surgeons performing such complex gynaecologic surgery there is still much to be desired with regards to evidence based guidelines for the preoperative assessment and surgical technique for colorectal endometriosis. Having an established guideline stating in which clinical situations endometriosis surgeons should performing rectovaginal shaving, versus discoid excision, versus segmental resection would be extremely important for all pelvic surgeons, even those operating in high-volume centres dedicated to the surgical management of complex endometriosis. This perspective highlights the shortcomings of the available data and attempts to create an algorithm surgeons can follow when performing surgery for colorectal endometriosis. This algorithm is based on our expert opinion after synthesising available data.

Indexed as

Colorectal endometriosisdisc excisionsegmental resectionshaving

Identifiers

PMID33889855
PMCPMC8051188
OpenAlexW3148883637

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.