Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35844074›Full record

SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2022

Comparison of Hysteroscopic Morcellation Versus Resectoscopy in Treatment of Patients with Endometrial Lesions: A Meta-Analysis.

Fangying Ren, Guannan Huang, Xue Wang, Xuehui Li, Jianning Cai

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comprehensive Analysis of Risk Factors for Recurrence in Women of Reproductive Age Undergoing Hysteroscopic Polypectomy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fangying RenDepartment of Gynecology, Hebei Linxi People's Hospital, Xingtai, Hebei, China (mainland).
Guannan HuangDepartment of Ultrasound, The Second hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China (mainland).
Xue WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Statistics, School of Public Health, Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China (mainland).
Xuehui LiDepartment of Gynecology, The First hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China (mainland).
Jianning CaiDepartment of Epidemic Treatment and Prevention, Center for Disease Prevention and Control of Shijiazhuang City, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China (mainland).
Hebei Medical University · CNHebei Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Hysteroscopic surgery has been widely used in clinical practice for more than 30 years due to its advantages of less trauma, less bleeding, and direct vision. The aim of this study was to compare hysteroscopic morcellation versus conventional resectoscopy for removal of endometrial lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS For the database search, we used the keywords "morcellator," "morcellators," "morcellate," "morcellation," and "morcellated" combined with "hysteroscopy," "hysteroscopy," "uteroscope," and "transcervical". The last search was conducted on February 1, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS According to our retrieval scheme and the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we found 6 studies including 565 patients. For enumeration data, we calculated the effect size as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI), while for quantitative data we used the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). There was no significant difference between success rate of hysteroscopic morcellation and conventional resectoscopy (relative risk and 95% confidence interval 1.05(0.97,1.13); P=0.232). Procedure time was also shorter with hysteroscopic morcellation, the procedure time of the hysteroscopic morcellation group was 3.43 min shorter compared with the conventional resectoscopy group, and the operating time in the hysteroscopic morcellation group was 2.81 min shorter. In terms of fluid deficit, there was no statistically significant difference in fluid loss between the 2 groups (P=0.209). CONCLUSIONS Hysteroscopic morcellation is associated with a shorter procedure time and operative time among patients with endometrial lesions compared with resectoscopy.

Indexed as

MorcellationFemaleHumansHysteroscopyOperative TimePregnancy

Identifiers

PMID35844074
PMCPMC9306303
OpenAlexW4285096503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.