ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2023
A comparison of special intrauterine balloons and intrauterine contraceptive devices in the treatment of intrauterine adhesions.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term reproductive outcomes analysis and prediction of the modified uterine stent treatment for mild to moderate intrauterine adhesions: experience at a single institution.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Long-term effects of hysteroscopic adhesiolysis on postoperative pregnancy rates and fertility outcomes in patients with intrauterine adhesions.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of a special kind of intrauterine balloon (IUB) and that of an intrauterine contraception device (IUD) for patients with intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) after transcervical resection of adhesion (TCRA).
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, after TCRA, 31 patients received a special IUB, and 38 patients received an IUD. The Fisher exact test, logistic regression method, Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression model were used for statistical analysis. A two-sided value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe readhesion rate significantly differed between the IUB group and IUD group, at 15.39% and 54.06%, respectively (P = 0.002). For recurrent moderate IUA, patients in the IUB group had lower scores than patients in the IUD group (P = 0.035). There was a significant difference in the intrauterine pregnancy rate of IUA patients in the IUB group and IUD group after treatment, with rates of 55.56% and 14.29%, respectively (P = 0.015).
conclusionPatients in the special IUB group had better outcomes than those in the IUD group, which has a certain guiding significance for clinical work.
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.