Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36206798›Full record

ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2022

Endometrial polypectomy using tissue removal device or electrosurgical snare: a randomised controlled trial.

J van Gemert, M C Herman, P Beelen, P M Geomini, M Y Bongers

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 1 institution in 1 country.

J van Gemert
M C Herman
P Beelen
P M Geomini
M Y Bongers
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hysteroscopic transcervical resection of endometrial polyps is a widely used method and is increasingly performed in office or outpatient care. To ensure patient comfort is key, smaller instruments are preferred while also achieving a complete resection of the pathology. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of the electrosurgical polyp snare (DPS) in comparison with a tissue removal device (TRD). Materials and Methods: This was a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial which included 66 women with symptomatic endometrial polyps who had been referred to the gynaecological outpatient clinic at the Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, the Netherlands. The patients were randomly allocated by using sealed envelopes to treatment with either the DPS (Duckbill®, Cook) or the TRD (Truclear™, Medtronic). Clinicians and patients were not blinded to the treatment performed. An independent observer blindly assessed the results. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the complete removal of the endometrial polyp. Secondary outcomes were woman acceptability and pain during the procedure, operating time, peri-operative and immediate postoperative complications. Results: 57% of the polyps in the DPS group and 95% in the TRD group were completely removed (risk difference -0.39; 95% CI: -0.60 to -0.15). Average operating time was longer with DPS compared to the TRD (11.7 min. vs. 6.8 min., p = 0.018). The number of insertions of the hysteroscope was higher with the DPS compared to the TRD (3.9 vs. 1.7, p <0.001). One serious adverse event, a uterine perforation, occurred in the DPS group. Conclusion: The TRD was superior to the DPS in completeness of polyp removal. What is new?: TRD has a higher rate of complete polyp resection, overall safety and higher patient satisfaction, this instrument should be considered as the preferred option in outpatient and office gynaecology.

Identifiers

PMID36206798
PMCPMC10350946
OpenAlexW4298127692

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.