Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35614405›Full record

Trial reportBMC women's health2022

Hysteroscopic management versus ultrasound-guided evacuation for women with first-trimester pregnancy loss, a randomised controlled trial.

Hadeer Meshaal, Emad Salah, Eman Fawzy, Mazen Abdel-Rasheed, Ahmed Maged, Hany Saad

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC women's health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03081104 (Comparative Study Between Operative Hysteroscopy Versus the Ultrasound Guided Vacuum Aspiration Versus the Blind Vacuum Aspiration for the Treatment of the Missed Abortion), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03081104 naunknown statusnot on this map

Comparative Study Between Operative Hysteroscopy Versus the Ultrasound Guided Vacuum Aspiration Versus the Blind Vacuum Aspiration for the Treatment of the Missed Abortion

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2017 to 2017Enrolled300ConditionsMissed AbortionArmshystroscopy, ultrasound, Aspiration
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Hadeer MeshaalObstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Emad SalahObstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Eman FawzyObstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mazen Abdel-RasheedReproductive Health Research Department, National Research Centre, 33 El-Buhouth St, Dokki, Cairo, 12622, Egypt. doctor_mazen@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5575-1782
Ahmed MagedObstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Hany SaadObstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the hysteroscopic management of first-trimester pregnancy loss compared to surgical evacuation either blind or under ultrasonographic guidance‎.

methodsThis clinical trial included ‎315 women with first-trimester pregnancy loss, divided equally into three groups. Group 1 underwent traditional blind surgical evacuation, group 2 underwent ultrasound-guided evacuation, and group 3 underwent hysteroscopic management. All women were assessed for retained products, surgical complications, the need for further management, and pregnancy occurrence after evacuation within 2 years of follow up.

resultsThe rate of presence of conception remnants and the need for further ‎treatment was significantly higher in group 1 compared to groups 2 and 3 (4.8% vs. 0% vs. 0%, P = 0.012). The conception rate within 2 years was significantly lower in group 1 compared to groups 2 and 3 (57.4% vs. 73.2% vs. 82.7%, P = 0.002), and the duration needed to conceive was significantly prolonged in group 1 compared to groups 2 and 3 (9.8 vs. 8.3 vs. 6.9 months, P < 0.001). Interestingly, women who underwent hysteroscopic management needed a significantly shorter time to conceive than those who underwent ultrasound-guided evacuation‎ (6.9 vs. 8.3 months, P = 0.006).

conclusionsHysteroscopic management of first-trimester pregnancy loss was superior to ultrasound-guided surgical evacuation regarding the time interval to conceive. Both techniques were superior to the blind evacuation technique regarding removal of the whole conception remnants, need for further treatment and fertility outcomes. Clinical trial registration: It was first registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 16/03/2017 with registration number NCT03081104.

Indexed as

FertilizationHysteroscopyFemaleFertilityHumansPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstUltrasonography, InterventionalHysteroscopyMissed miscarriagePregnancy lossSurgical evacuationUltrasound-guided evacuation

Identifiers

PMID35614405
PMCPMC9131545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.