Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38658010›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

VaNoLaH trial: a study protocol-a multinational randomised controlled trial including two identical substudies comparing vaginal versus vNOTES (vaginal natural orifice transluminal surgery) hysterectomy or laparoscopic versus vNOTES hysterectomy.

Jan Filip Baekelandt, Andrea Stuart, Johanna Wagenius, Annouschka Laenen, Ben W Mol, Jan Deprest, Jan J A Bosteels

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

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 NCT05971875 (A Multinational Randomized Controlled Trial Including Two Identical Sub Studies Comparing Vaginal Versus vNOTES), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT05971875 naunknown statusnot on this map

A Multinational Randomized Controlled Trial Including Two Identical Sub Studies Comparing Vaginal Versus vNOTES (Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Surgery) Hysterectomy or Laparoscopic Versus vNOTES Hysterectomy.

TypeinterventionalSponsorDr Jan Baekelandt, MDRan2024 to 2026Enrolled1,000ConditionsMinimally Invasive SurgeryArmsvNOTES vs Vaginal Hysterectomy, vNOTES vs Laparoscopic Hysterectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Jan Filip BaekelandtImeldaziekenhuis, Bonheiden, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8344-8622
Andrea StuartObstetrics and Gynecology, Lund University Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund, Sweden andrea.stuart@med.lu.se.ORCID 0000-0002-5131-6297
Johanna WageniusObstetrics and Gynecology, Lund University Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund, Sweden.
Annouschka LaenenInteruniversity Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics, Leuven, Belgium.
Ben W MolOB/GYN, School of Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8337-550X
Jan DeprestGynaecology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jan J A BosteelsImeldaziekenhuis, Bonheiden, Belgium.
Imelda Hospital · BELund University · SEAustralia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHysterectomy is one of the most common surgeries performed in women. Minimally invasive methods are on the rise globally as they have been shown to decrease surgical morbidity compared with abdominal hysterectomy. Hysterectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) is the latest innovation. It combines the vaginal approach and endoscopy via the vagina. Large pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are lacking comparing outcomes after vNOTES, vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH).

methodsMulticentre pragmatic RCT aiming to recruit 1000 women aged 18-75 years undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease. The RCT includes two identical substudies (groups A and B). If VH is considered safe and feasible, the patient will be randomised within group A (VH vs vNOTES). If VH is not considered safe or feasible, patients will be randomised within group B (LH vs vNOTES). ANALYSIS: Primary outcome is the proportion of women leaving the hospital within 12 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes are hospitalisation time, conversion rates, duration of the surgical procedure, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications and readmission. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Ethical Board Committee at Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium, has approved the research protocol 230704 (principal investigator). Before including patients, all centres will require local or national ethical approval. The results of the study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05971875.

Indexed as

Hysterectomy, VaginalLaparoscopyNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansHysterectomyLength of StayMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicPostoperative ComplicationsPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicYoung AdultMinimally invasive surgeryRandomized Controlled TrialSURGERY

Identifiers

PMID38658010
PMCPMC11043683
OpenAlexW4395084834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.