ArticleGynecologic oncology2021
Quantifying procedural pain associated with office gynecologic tract sampling methods.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of cytological examination of Tao brush endometrial sampling in diagnosing endometrial premalignancy and malignancy.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022Pooled it
- Observational
- Research Progress of DNA Methylation Markers for Endometrial Carcinoma Diagnosis.Journal of Cancer · 2025Review
- Effect of endometrial biopsy method on ribonucleic acid quality and gene expression analysis in patients with leiomyoma.F&S reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Detection of endometrial cancer using tampon-based collection and methylated DNA markers.Gynecologic oncology · 2023Article
- Factors Influencing on Pain in Patients Undergoing Pipelle Endometrial Biopsy for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: Why a Personalized Approach Should Be Applied?Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveEmerging technologies may enable detection of endometrial cancer with methods that are less invasive than standard biopsy methods. This study compares patient pain scores among 3 office gynecologic tract sampling methods and explores their potential determinants.
methodsA prospective study including 3 sampling methods (tampon, Tao brush (TB), endometrial biopsy (EB)) was conducted between December 2015 and August 2017 and included women ≥45 years of age presenting with abnormal uterine bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding, or thickened endometrial stripe. Patients rated pain after each sampling procedure using a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS).
resultsOf 428 enrolled, 190 (44.39%) patients underwent all 3 sampling methods and reported a VAS score for each. Nearly half were postmenopausal (n = 93, 48.9%); the majority were parous (172, 90.5%) of which 87.8% had at least one vaginal delivery. Among the 190 patients, the median (IQR) pain score was significantly lower for sampling via tampon (0 [0,2]) compared to TB (28 [12, 52]) or EB (32 [15, 60]) (both p < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed rank test). Among women who underwent tampon sampling, age and pain scores showed a weak positive correlation (Spearman rank correlation, r = 0.14; p = 0.006); EB sampling was associated with a weak inverse correlation between parity and pain scores (r = -0.14; p = 0.016).
conclusionGynecologic tract sampling using a tampon had significantly lower pain than both EB and TB. Pain with tampon sampling was positively correlated with age and pain with EB sampling was inversely correlated with parity. Pain scores for TB and EB were not significantly related to age, menopausal status, or BMI.
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.