ArticleCaspian journal of internal medicine2021
Cavaterm
Article in Caspian journal of internal medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thermal balloon ablation in women with high anesthetic and surgical risk compared to invulnerable women according to the American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) physical status stratification.
methodsThis report was based on a retrospective cohort study of women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) who were eligible for treatment with Cavaterm
resultsThis research study consisted of 63 women with mean age 44.42±5.48. Mean of body mass index (BMI) in the HR cohort was higher than the LR cohort (31.48±6.22 vs 26.83± 3.51, P=0.005) and results were also similar considering the uterine length (mm) between HR and LR women (58.27±35.70 vs 30.92± 35.30, P=0.01). The primary outcome of treatment after a one-year follow-up in the two groups (HR and LR) was 31 (93.9%) and 15 (78.9%), respectively. After adjusting for known confounders including age, uterine length, parity, dysmenorrheal, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.14- 2.5; P= 0.60).
conclusionFor women with high anesthetic and surgical risks derived from serious underlying co morbidities, endometrial ablation can provide a minimally invasive, safe, and effective therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.
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.