ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2023
Hysteroscopic biopsy compared with endometrial curettage to assess the preoperative rate of atypical hyperplasia underestimating endometrial carcinoma.
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 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- SEOM-GEICO clinical guidelines on endometrial cancer (2025).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025Guideline
- Quantitative Assessment of Polarization and Elastic Properties of Endometrial Tissue for Precancer/Cancer Diagnostics Using Multimodal Optical Coherence Tomography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Increasing utilization of intrauterine device insertion at hysteroscopic endometrial evaluation for patients with endometrial hyperplasia.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Article
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
purposeTo evaluate the rate of atypical hyperplasia (AH) underestimating endometrial cancer (EC) comparing endometrial biopsy (EB) accomplished by hysteroscopic biopsy with dilatation and curettage (D&C). Second, to compare the two techniques to foresee EC grading.
methodsThis trial was based on the findings of two Gynecological Departments within the same Public Utility, sharing pathological service and database but routinely performing EB under hysteroscopic visualization (group A) or hysteroscopy followed by D&C (group B). We retrieved the clinical data of patients showing EC on hysterectomy throughout a 10-year period. The accuracy of hysteroscopic-view diagnosis and EB pathology were compared, having the pathologic findings of hysterectomy as reference.
resultsA total of 161 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 109 and 52 were included in groups A and B, respectively. In group A, 32.1% of patients underwent EB in an out-patient setting. To foresee EC, hysteroscopic view showed a sensitivity of 82.5% and 70.2% in groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.019). An underestimation of EC diagnosed as AH on EB was found in 20 patients (12.4%). Among these, 18 (16.5%) and 2 (3.8%) were included in groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.022). In group A, a fault diagnosis of AH resulted higher when EB was performed as out-patient setting (P = 0.006). EB allowed the grading of EC in 73.3% and 90.3% of patients in groups A and B, respectively. The agreement was 73.7% and 85.1%, leading to moderate (κ = 0.56) and good (κ = 0.77) "κ" coefficient of concordance for groups A and B, respectively.
conclusionsEB performed by D&C lowers the rate of AH underestimating concurrent EC and improves the grading agreement when compared with hysteroscopic sampling.
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.