ArticleInternational journal of fertility & sterility2023
Effect of Endometrial Ablation by Thermal Balloon vs. Hysteroscopy Ablation on Amenorrhea Rates in Patients with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in International journal of fertility & sterility, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring thermal balloon endometrial ablation with Foley's catheter: Management for heavy menstrual bleeding.SAGE open medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) that is any irregularity in menstrual cycles causes women to refer to clinics. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and complications of endometrial ablation by the thermal balloon (Cavaterm) method with the hysteroscopy loop resection method in the treatment of AUB. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe present study is an open-label, randomized clinical trial that was performed in the two hospitals, Shahid Akbarabadi and Hazrat Rasoul Akram, of Tehran, Iran, from December 2019 to October 2020. Patients were randomly allocated to the two groups of interventions by a simple randomization method. The proportion of amenorrhea (as primary outcome) and consequent hysterectomy and patient satisfaction (as secondary outcomes) was assessed using the Chi-square test and independent t test.
resultsThere was no significant difference between the two groups in the baseline characteristics. The percentage of intervention failure was statistically higher in the hysteroscopy group (24%) in comparison with the Cavaterm group [8.2%, P=0.03, relative risk (RR)=1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-2.36]. Mean ± standard deviation of satisfaction based on the Likert score in the Cavaterm group and hysteroscopy group were 4.3 ± 1.21 and 3.7 ± 1.56, respectively, that showed a significant difference (P=0.04). Assessing the procedural complications, the rate of spotting, bloody discharge, and malodor discharge was significantly higher in the Cavaterm group. In contrast, postoperative dysmenorrhea is more common in the hysteroscopy group.
conclusionCavaterm ablation is accompanied by a higher success rate of amenorrhea and patients' satisfaction than hysteroscopy ablation (registration number: IRCT20220210053986N1).
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.