ArticleMedicine2022
A novel technique for moderate to severe intrauterine adhesions: A historical cohort study.
Article in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of our novel technique, ultrasound guided hysteroscopic catheter dilation (US-HCD), for the treatment of moderate to severe intrauterine adhesion (IUA). A total of 126 patients diagnosed with IUA and met the enrollment criteria were admitted in this historical cohort study from June 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018. All patients were divided into 2 groups according to the surgical techniques used. Group A (n = 68) were treated with traditional hysteroscopic adhesiolysis with scissors (THA) and Group B (n = 58) were treated with US-HCD. Their data for the next 2 years following the initial surgery were analyzed. Safety and feasibility (operation time, surgical complications and the third-look hysteroscopic surgery rate), and post-operation efficacy (reduction of American Fertility Society [AFS] scores, pregnancy and live birth rates) were evaluated between groups. Between the groups, there was no statistically significant differences in basic preoperative information and AFS scores (P > .05). While there were significant differences in the operation time of the initial surgery (P < .05) and reduction of AFS scores (P < .05). No surgical complications were recorded and only 3 patients (5.2%) received a third-look hysteroscopy in Group B, while there were 6 cases of complications and 13 cases (19.1%) of third-look hysteroscopy in Group A, indicating significant differences between Groups (P < .05). Both groups exhibited comparable pregnancy rate, live birth rate and obstetric complications (P > .05). Our new technique is a safe, feasible and effective procedure for moderate to severe IUA patients, which can be mastered more quickly and easily by surgeons and applied in areas with less affluent economy and without hysteroscopic scissors, thus worthy of further study.
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.