Trial reportArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2023
Clinical evaluation of a new hand-driven hysteroscopic tissue removal device, Resectr
Trial report 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.
- Effects of hysteroscopic cold knife technique on the treatment of endometrial polyps and its protective effect on the endometrium.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Uterine cervical stenosis: from classification to advances in management. Overcoming the obstacles to access the uterine cavity.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA first clinical evaluation of a new hand-driven hysteroscopic tissue removal device, Resectr
methodsWomen with at least one small endometrial polyp were eligible. Hysteroscopic polypectomy was performed using the Resectr
resultsOne hundred and two hysteroscopic polypectomies were included in the analysis. The median installation time was 1.9 min (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-2.1). The median time to complete polyp removal was 1.2 min (95% CI 0.8-1.6). The median surgeon's safety, practical, and comfort scores on a 5-point Likert scale were high (5 (5-5), 5 (4-5), and 5 (4-5), respectively). Women's pain score was low (median 1 (0-3)), whereas the satisfaction rate was high (median 5 (5-5)), both on a 5-point Likert scale. There were two conversions (hysteroscopic scissors (n = 1), a new Resectr
conclusionHysteroscopic removal of small polyps, using the [Formula: see text] 5fr in an office setting is feasible in terms of installation and resection time. Surgeon's practical, comfort, and safety scores are high, whereas women report low pain scores and high satisfaction rates.
trial registrationDutch Clinical Trial Registry (NTR 7119, NL6923): https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6923 . Date of registration: 27/03/2018.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36920533What 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.