Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39228244›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2024

How safe is high-intensity focused ultrasound? An intriguing solution for obstetric and gynecological diseases: A systematic review.

Mostafa Maged Ali, Chileshe Raphael Mpehle, Esther Olusola, Phuti Khomotso Ratshabedi, Ebtehal Ali Helal Farag

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

5 authors.

Mostafa Maged AliEgyptian Ministry of Health and Population, Fayoum General Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fayoum, Egypt.ORCID 0009-0007-9657-7574
Chileshe Raphael MpehleHigh Intensity Focused Ultrasound Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-4008-167X
Esther OlusolaHigh Intensity Focused Ultrasound Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0009-0003-7175-3958
Phuti Khomotso RatshabediHigh Intensity Focused Ultrasound Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0009-0005-2317-3777
Ebtehal Ali Helal FaragAl-Azhar University Faculty of Medicine, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID 0009-0008-9250-3815

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is a non-surgical and noninvasive treatment modality that depends on external ultrasound energy sources that induce focused mass ablation and protein degeneration in the treatment area via thermal energy penetration under the intact skin. We aim in our study to collectively evaluate the safety of HIFU for the treatment of different obstetric and gynecological diseases in the literature. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct databases, without restriction on date or language, from the inception of these databases until January 20, 2024. We also examined the references of the included studies in the Mendeley archive for eligible articles. We found a total of 706 studies. After the screening and selection process, 56 participants were included. Our dichotomous outcomes were pooled in our single-arm meta-analysis as risk ratio (RR) and with 95% confidence interval (CI) while our continuous outcomes were pooled as mean change and 95% CIs. Fixed- or random-effects models were applied depending on the heterogeneity detected. Our systematic review and meta-analysis included 56 studies including 11.740 patients. Depending on the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) classification for adverse effects. The results of this meta-analysis for the type A category that did not require clinical intervention found that pain in the treatment site estimated RR with 95% CI: 0.61 (0.33, 0.89), abnormal vaginal discharge 0.16 (0.073, 0.24), low-grade fever (<38 °C) 0.005 (0.002, 0.009). Sensory abnormalities of the lower limbs were examined in 3390 individuals and observed in only 19 patients who experienced gradual relief of symptoms within one month after treatment. Regarding SIR type B, 99 of a total of 6.437 patients had small vesicles and superficial burns with pooled RR and 95% CI: 0.012 (0.007, 0.018). In terms of groin or perianal and lower abdominal pain, our RRs with 95% CIs were 0.1 (0.067, 0.13) and 0.38 (0.25, 0.51). However, vaginal bleeding was detected in only 32 out of a total of 3.017. Major adverse events like lumber disc herniation, thrombocytopenia, and renal failure, were unmentionable. Additionally, our included studies did not record any deaths. HIFU, either alone or in combination with oxytocin or any other enhancing agent, is safe for patients with different gynecological and obstetric diseases. In terms of efficacy, it showed promising results compared with traditional treatment lines. To our knowledge, we are the first and most comprehensive meta-analysis in the literature that has studied the different safety outcomes related to HIFU as a treatment modality for different obstetric and gynecological diseases with a very large sample size, making our evidence strong and less attributed to errors.

Indexed as

adenomyosisectopic pregnancyendometriosisgestational trophoblastic diseasesHIFU

Identifiers

PMID39228244
PMCPMC11589318

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.