ReviewSAGE open medicine2024
Uterine artery embolization versus myomectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in SAGE open medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Successful full-term pregnancy after bilateral uterine artery embolization for a large intracavitary submucosal fibroid: A case report.Case reports in women's health · 2026Article
- Hydrogel-based tumor embolization and synergistic therapeutic strategies.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- Fertility outcomes after uterine artery embolization for symptomatic leiomyomas.CVIR endovascular · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Uterine fibroids are the commonest benign tumors of the reproductive tract in women of childbearing age. They are usually asymptomatic but can cause menorrhagia. Treatments include myomectomy and uterine artery embolization (UAE). The latter is a relatively new procedure, therefore of special interest. Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies to provide a comprehensive outlook on the effectiveness of UAE by comparing its outcomes to those of myomectomy. Electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane Central) were systematically searched from January 2000 to March 2022 for published randomized control trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses that compared UAE to myomectomy for at least one of the pre-specified outcomes, namely re-intervention rates, length of hospital stay, and complications. Methods: We shortlisted nine studies for the final analysis. For continuous outcomes, results from random-effects meta-analysis were presented as mean differences (MDs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: The final analysis consisted of nine studies. Factors like re-intervention, hospitalization, and complications, each with its unique follow-up duration were assessed. Pooled analysis demonstrated significant results for greater re-intervention rates with UAE as compared to myomectomy (RR: 2.16, 95% CI: (1.27-3.66), Conclusion: Our meta-analysis of approximately 196,595 patients demonstrates that myomectomy results in a significant reduction in re-intervention rate compared to UAE.
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.