ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022
Pregnancy and Adverse Obstetric Outcomes After Hysteroscopic Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Congenital Uterine Malformations and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Retrospective Observational Study to Inform Reproductive Counseling.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2026Article
- Prevalence of Septate Uterus in a Large Population of Women of Reproductive Age: Comparison of ASRM 2016 and 2021, ESHRE/ESGE, and CUME Diagnostic Criteria: A Prospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Fertility-enhancing hysteroscopic surgery; multi-center retrospective cohort study of reproductive outcome.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Safety and effectiveness of office hysteroscopic metroplasty with and without uterine stent placement in infertile population: a 10-year retrospective study.Therapeutic advances in reproductive healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Although the randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the efficacy of hysteroscopic resection in women with uterine septum has not shown any significant correlation in recent research, motivation for deeper study remains insufficient. In this study, the objective was to determine pregnancy-related outcomes, along with adverse obstetric outcomes, following hysteroscopic resection and also to determine whether women with hysteroscopic resection bear the same outcomes as women with normal uterine cavities. Search Methods: From January 1995 to February 2022, a systematic literature review was conducted to identify all studies published concerning the gestation outcomes of women with and without hysteroscopic resection while comparing the gestation outcomes of women after hysteroscopic resection and with a normal uterine cavity. Our primary outcome was the live birth rate (LBR). The secondary outcomes were term delivery, preterm delivery, spontaneous miscarriage, malpresentation, cesarean section, and other adverse obstetric outcomes. Results: 22 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The control groups of 14 studies were treated women, and the control groups of the other 8 studies were patients bearing a normal uterine cavity. Hysteroscopic resection was related to a higher rate of term delivery (OR = 2.26, 95% CI, 1.26-4.05), and a lower rate of spontaneous abortion (OR = 0.50, 95% CI, 0.27-0.93), and a lower rate of malpresentation (OR = 0.31, 95% CI, 0.19-0.50). Nevertheless, in comparison with the normal uterus group, the rates of preterm birth, cesarean section, and postpartum hemorrhage after resection did not return to normal levels. Conclusion: Hysteroscopic resection can effectively reduce the risk of abortion and malpresentation in patients possessing a uterine septum while increasing the term delivery rate. Although well-designed RCTs should confirm our meta-analysis, it still bears recommending to patients.
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.