ArticleBMJ open2024
Comparing the efficacy and safety of three surgical approaches for total hysterectomy (TSATH): protocol for a multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06663553 (Protocol for a Comparative Study of the Efficacy of Transumbilical Laparoendoscopic Single-site Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Protocol for a Comparative Study of the Efficacy of Transumbilical Laparoendoscopic Single-site Surgery (TU-LESS) and Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) in Hysterectomy Performed on Patients With Enlarged Uterus: A Prospective Single-blinded, Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Transvaginal natural orifice endoscopic surgery for hysterectomy: a prospective cohort study.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Optimizing Hysterectomy: A Prospective Comparative Analysis of Surgical Techniques and Their Impact on Women's Lives.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHysterectomy is the most common surgical procedure in the field of gynaecology. The traditional multiport laparoscopy, transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (TU-LESS) and transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) hysterectomy approaches have been implemented to varying degrees in clinical practice. At present, although their feasibility has been proven, there are no large randomised controlled studies on postoperative rehabilitation. This study aims to evaluate postoperative recovery and assess the safety and effectiveness of these three surgical approaches for total laparoscopic hysterectomy. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, randomised, single-blind, three-arm, parallel-group, interventional clinical trial. Recruitment will be carried out in five tertiary hospitals in China. Patients diagnosed with benign uterine disease or precancerous lesions will be assigned to the vNOTES group, TU-LESS group and conventional laparoscopy group at a 1:1:1 ratio. The achievement rate of comprehensive indices of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) within 24 hours postoperatively will be considered the primary outcome (the comprehensive indicators of ERAS include fluid intake, passing flatus, urination after catheter removal, ambulation and a Visual Analogue Scale score ≤3.) This study will use a non-inferiority test, with a power (1-ß) of 80% and a margin of -0.15, at a one-sided α of 0.0125. The sample size will be 480 patients (including an assumed 15% dropout rate), calculated according to the primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved on 25 April 2022 by the Medical Ethics Committee of West China Second University Hospital (2022(057)), Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. All participants will be required to provide informed consent before their participation in the study. The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. PROTOCOL VERSION: V.3.0, 31 August 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2200057405.
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.