ArticleThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2024
Outpatient hysteroscopy: Suitable for all? A retrospective cohort study of safety, success and acceptability in Australia.
Article in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 2024. 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of patient-reported outcome item libraries in cancer research: an EORTC Quality of Life Group study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Pooled it
- Post protocol residual thickness as a negative predictor for pharmacological treatment in early pregnancy loss.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Australia, gynaecologists continue to assess and investigate abnormal uterine bleeding with inpatient hysteroscopy despite evidence validating outpatient hysteroscopy services.
aimThis retrospective cohort study assessed the safety, success and acceptability of office hysteroscopy in a gynae-oncology rapid-access clinic over six years in Sydney, Australia, and included all women without an age or body mass index (BMI) cut-off using a 'see and treat' concept.
methodsA database was created and analysed retrospectively for patients who attended office hysteroscopy service between January 2016 and March 2021 (63 months, 481 eligible). An anonymous modified PAT-32 patient satisfaction questionnaire was also offered to an initial cohort after their procedure to gauge insightful feedback about acceptability.
resultsA total of 92% of patients had successful outpatient hysteroscopic access; 24% of cases required hysteroscopy under general anaesthesia (GA) despite pathology in over 50% of cases; 68% of the total were able to be managed with outpatient hysteroscopy and did not require a follow-up GA hysteroscopy. This paper is also the first of its kind to our knowledge to incorporate patients >65 years, those with a BMI >35 and those with a history of cervical stenosis. This study suggests that age and BMI do not impact the success rate of the procedure.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that outpatient hysteroscopy is an acceptable, safe procedure that is well tolerated by patients. Considering our rapid-access hysteroscopy service allowed 68% of the patient cohort to avoid hysteroscopy under GA, we estimate conservatively ~$63 million per year in Australia could be saved by performing office hysteroscopies.
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.