ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2022
Effect of Vaginoscopy versus Conventional Hysteroscopy on Pain, Complications, and Patient Satisfaction in Patients with Endometrial Polyps.
Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The application value of 5 Fr non-contact hysteroscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine diseases in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- The efficacy and safety of cervical polypectomy with vaginoscopy in pregnant women.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Retracted: Effect of Vaginoscopy versus Conventional Hysteroscopy on Pain, Complications, and Patient Satisfaction in Patients with Endometrial Polyps.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-12-06Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard for diagnosing intrauterine pathology. Traditional hysteroscopy requires the placement of a vaginal speculum and cervical forceps, which are large in diameter, causing discomfort and pain to the patient and even causing vagal reflexes. Aims: To investigate the impact and clinical value of vaginoscopy versus conventional hysteroscopy on pain, complications, and patient satisfaction in patients with endometrial polyps and to analyse the advantages of clinical application of vaginoscopy examination. Materials and Methods: One hundred and twenty-five patients with endometrial polyps treated in our hospital from May 2021 to December 2021 were selected for this study and divided into 52 cases in the hysteroscopy group and 73 cases in the vaginoscopy group according to the random remainder grouping method. Conventional hysteroscopy was used, and in the vaginoscopy group, vaginoscopy was performed. The impact of pain, complications, patient satisfaction, and clinical value of the two groups was observed and compared. Results: The time taken for the examination varied between the different hysteroscopic methods, with the hysteroscopy group taking the longest time compared to the vaginoscopy group ( Conclusion: The vaginoscopy technique shortens the examination and treatment time, reduces patient pain, improves patient compliance, reduces the use of preintervention drugs and anaesthetics, and reduces complications.
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.