Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37451732›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Effectiveness of laparoscopic niche resection versus expectant management in patients with unexplained infertility and a large uterine caesarean scar defect (uterine niche): protocol for a randomised controlled trial (the LAPRES study).

Jolijn Vissers, Saskia J M Klein Meuleman, Robert A de Leeuw, Rik van Eekelen, Freek A Groenman, Ben W Mol, Wouter J K Hehenkamp, Judith A F Huirne

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jolijn VissersDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands j.vissers1@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-9041-0270
Saskia J M Klein MeulemanDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Robert A de LeeuwDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rik van EekelenObstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Freek A GroenmanDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ben W MolOB/GYN, School of Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8337-550X
Wouter J K HehenkampDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Judith A F HuirneDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLCentrum voor Gynaecologische Oncologie Amsterdam · NLMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA uterine niche is a defect at the site of the uterine caesarean scar that is associated with gynaecological symptoms and infertility. Promising results are reported in cohort studies after a laparoscopic niche resection concerning reduction of gynaecological symptoms in relation to baseline and concerning pregnancy outcomes. However, randomised controlled trials to study the effect of a laparoscopic niche resection on reproductive outcomes in infertile women are lacking. This study will answer the question if laparoscopic niche resection in comparison to expectant management improves reproductive outcomes in infertile women with a large uterine niche. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The LAPRES study is a randomised, non-blinded, controlled trial, including 200 infertile women with a total follow-up of 2 years. Women with the presence of a large niche in the uterine caesarean scar and unexplained infertility of at least 1 year or failed IVF will be randomly allocated to a laparoscopic niche resection within 6 weeks or to expectant management for at least 9 months. A large niche is defined as a niche with a depth of >50% of the myometrial thickness and a residual myometrium of ≤3 mm on transvaginal ultrasound. Those receiving expectant management will be allowed to receive fertility therapies, including assisted reproductive techniques, if indicated. The primary outcome is time to ongoing pregnancy, defined as a viable intrauterine pregnancy at 12 weeks' gestation. Secondary outcome measures are time to conception leading to a live birth, other pregnancy outcomes, received fertility therapies after randomisation, menstruation characteristics, patient satisfaction, quality of life, additional interventions, and surgical and ultrasound outcomes (intervention group). Questionnaires will be filled out at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months after randomisation. Ultrasound evaluation will be performed at baseline and at 3 months after surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the medical ethics committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centre. (Ref. No. 2017.030). Participants will sign a written informed consent before participation. The results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER DUTCH TRIAL REGISTER REF NO NL6350 : http://www.trialregister.nl.

Indexed as

Infertility, FemaleLaparoscopyCesarean SectionCicatrixFemaleHumansPregnancyQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUrogenital AbnormalitiesUterusWatchful WaitingMinimally invasive surgeryReproductive medicineSubfertility

Identifiers

PMID37451732
PMCPMC10351273
OpenAlexW4384344013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.