ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2022
Efficacy of hyoscine in pain management during hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Opinion paper: gynecological surgery in local anesthesia?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 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
18 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials from full-text, scientific journal archives to assess the efficacy of hyoscine for the management of pain during in-office hysteroscopy (OH) procedures. Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS and the Web of Science were searched for all clinical trials that matched our search criteria. A full assessment of bias was made using the Cochrane Group tool-set. The following outcomes were included: visual analogue scale (VAS) score for postoperative pain, postoperative need for analgesia, and procedure time. In the case of homogeneous data, the analysis was performed using a fixed effects system, and the random effects system was used with heterogeneous data. Inclusion criteria included only randomized clinical trials, and interventions that included patients receiving hyoscine-N-Butyl Bromide during OH, regardless of dose or mode of administration, and compared this with placebo. Three clinical trials were included. The actual mean difference (MD) of the VAS pain score showed no significant difference between hyoscine or placebo [MD: -0.28 (-1.08, 0.52), (p=0.49)]. For postoperative analgesia, the overall MD showed no significant difference between hyoscine or placebo [MD: 0.43 (0.16, 1.14), (p=0.09)]. For procedure time, the combined effect estimate failed to show any significant difference between hyoscine and placebo [MD: -0.66 (-2.77, 1.44) (p=0.54)]. Contrary to previously published data, our meta-analysis using the latest available RCTs fails to show hyoscine as being effective in reducing pain or the need for other forms of anesthesia in OH.
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.