SynthesisBMJ open2024
Safety of diagnostic hysteroscopy for the investigation of type II endometrial cancer: systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Legal Lens on Hysteroscopy: A Retrospective Review of Medical Malpractice Claims of Hysteroscopic Procedures.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe goal of this study is to evaluate the safety of diagnostic hysteroscopy (HSC) in type II endometrial cancer (EC).
methodsWe searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library and the Chinese Medical Journal Full-Text Database until December 2023. Eligible trials were all cohort studies in which patients were allocated to diagnostic HSC group or dilation and curettage (D&C) group. Quality assessments of eligible studies were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scales. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated as a measure of effects.
resultsThree trials were included in our analysis, which were all retrospective cohort studies. 696 patients with histologically proven type II EC were allocated to HSC or D&C before surgery. 257 patients underwent preoperative HSC, and 439 patients underwent D&C. The positive peritoneal cytology rate did not statistically differ between the groups (RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.00 to 3.61; p=0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage between the HSC and D&C groups (stage I/II: RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.24; p=0.25; stage III/IV: RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.09; p=0.18). There was no significant difference in recurrence between the HSC and D&C groups (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.32; p=0.66); the heterogeneity of the two included studies was acceptable (p=0.54, I
conclusionsPreoperative HSC in patients with type II EC does not increase the risk for cancer cell dissemination within the peritoneal cavity. Preoperative HSC does not progress the FIGO staging in patients with type II EC and does not increase the risk of tumour recurrence. There is no reason to avoid HSC for the diagnosis of type II EC currently. However, type II tumours generally are less well differentiated and have poorer prognoses than type I tumours. More prospective and adequately powered trials are required to clarify whether preoperative HSC in patients with type II EC is safe.
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.