Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37669836›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy (LAVA): protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

Lina Antoun, Lee Middleton, Paul Smith, Ertan Saridogan, Kevin Cooper, Peter Brocklehurst, William McKinnon, Sheriden Bevan, Rebecca Woolley, Laura Jones and 4 more

Abstract 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Trial
  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

14 authors.

Lina AntounDepartment of Gynaecology, Birmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK antoun.lina@gmail.com t.j.clark@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4893-0576
Lee MiddletonSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Paul SmithDepartment of Gynaecology, Birmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Ertan SaridoganDepartment of Gynaecology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9736-4107
Kevin CooperAberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Peter BrocklehurstUniversity of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
William McKinnonUniversity of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sheriden BevanUniversity of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Rebecca WoolleyBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Laura JonesPublic Health, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4018-3855
Jayne FullardUniversity of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Monique MorganUniversity of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Tracy RobertsHealth Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
T Justin ClarkDepartment of Gynaecology, Birmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK antoun.lina@gmail.com t.j.clark@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5943-1062

Funding

Department of Health NIHR128991
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is uncertainty about the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal hysterectomy, particularly the relative rate of complications of the two procedures. While uptake of laparoscopic hysterectomy has been slow, the situation is changing with greater familiarity, better training, better equipment and increased proficiency in the technique. Thus, a large, robust, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare contemporary laparoscopic hysterectomy with abdominal hysterectomy to determine the safest and most cost-effective technique. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A parallel, open, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled, expertise-based surgery trial with integrated health economic evaluation and an internal pilot with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. A within trial-based economic evaluation will explore the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with open abdominal hysterectomy. We will aim to recruit 3250 women requiring a hysterectomy for a benign gynaecological condition and who were suitable for either laparoscopic or open techniques. The primary outcome is major complications up to six completed weeks postsurgery and the key secondary outcome is time from surgery to resumption of usual activities using the personalised Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function questionnaire. The principal outcome for the economic evaluation is to be cost per QALY at 12 months' postsurgery. A secondary analysis is to be undertaken to generate costs per major surgical complication avoided and costs per return to normal activities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the West Midlands-Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee, 18 February 2021 (Ethics ref: 21/WM/0019). REC approval for the protocol version 2.0 dated 2 February 2021 was issued on 18 February 2021.We will present the findings in national and international conferences. We will also aim to publish the findings in high impact peer-reviewed journals. We will disseminate the completed paper to the Department of Health, the Scientific Advisory Committees of the RCOG, the Royal College of Nurses (RCN) and the BSGE. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14566195.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyAdvisory CommitteesCost-Benefit AnalysisEquivalence Trials as TopicEthics Committees, ResearchFemaleHumansHysterectomyMulticenter Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicgynaecologyhealth economicsminimally invasive surgery

Identifiers

PMID37669836
PMCPMC10481847

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.