Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35781106›Full record

ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2022

Endometrial biopsy under direct hysteroscopic visualisation versus blind endometrial sampling for the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

A Di Spiezio Sardo, G Saccone, J Carugno, L A Pacheco, B Zizolfi, S Haimovich, T J Clark

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Staging by imaging in gynecologic cancer and the role of ultrasound: an update of European joint consensus statements.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

A Di Spiezio Sardo
G Saccone
J Carugno
L A Pacheco
B Zizolfi
S Haimovich
T J Clark
University of Naples Federico II · ITHillel Yaffe Medical Center · ILUniversity of Miami · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Endometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological neoplasia in western countries. Diagnosis of endometrial cancer requires an endometrial biopsy. A good quality endometrial biopsy allows not only the identification of the pathology, but also preoperative histologic subtype classification. Endometrial biopsy can be performed under direct hysteroscopic visualisation, but also using blind sampling techniques. Objectives: To compare endometrial biopsy performed under direct hysteroscopic visualisation versus blind sampling for the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer. Materials and Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Electronic databases were searched from their inception until March 2022.We included all studies comparing endometrial biopsy performed under direct hysteroscopic visualisation versus blind endometrial sampling. Main outcome measures: Sample adequacy, failure rate to detect endometrial cancer or endometrial hyperplasia, and rate of detection of endometrial cancer. The summary measures were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% of confidence interval (CI). Results: Four studies with a total of 1,295 patients were included. Endometrial biopsy under direct hysteroscopic visualisation was associated with a significantly higher rate of sample adequacy (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.17), and significantly lower risk of failure to detect endometrial cancer or endometrial hyperplasia (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.92) compared to blind endometrial sampling. However, there was no significant difference between endometrial biopsies taken under direct hysteroscopic visualisation or blindly, with or without a preceding diagnostic hysteroscopy, in the rate of detection of endometrial cancer (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.06). Conclusion: Hysteroscopic endometrial biopsy under direct visualisation is associated with significantly higher rate of sample adequacy and is comparable to blind endometrial sampling for the diagnosis of endometrial cancer and precancer. What is new?: Hysteroscopic endometrial biopsy under direct visualisation would be expected to reduce diagnostic failure for endometrial cancer compared to blind endometrial sampling.

Identifiers

PMID35781106
PMCPMC10191705
OpenAlexW4283784441

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.