ReviewHealth science reports2024
Different minimally invasive surgical methods to hysterectomy for benign gynecological disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revisiting Urological Injury Risks in Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy for Benign Indications: A Rare-Events Network Meta-Analysis with Sensitivity Analyses.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Different minimally invasive surgical methods to hysterectomy for benign gynecological disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Health science reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the perioperative efficacy of various minimally invasive hysterectomy procedures for treating benign gynecological diseases and to assess whether vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic hysterectomy (VNOTEH), a recently emerging procedure, is inferior to traditional laparoscopy. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), Wanfang Data, and China VIP Database from inception to August 2022 and updated in June 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different minimally invasive hysterectomy techniques in patients with benign gynecological conditions. The intervention measures included nine minimally invasive hysterectomies. The two researchers used the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for study appraisal. All statistical analyses and drawings were performed using STATA 17.0 and R 4.4.1. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the effectiveness of minimally invasive hysterectomy and rank its relative impact probabilistically. Results: A total of 78 RCTs involving 7640 patients and nine minimally invasive hysterectomy methods with 16 intervention combinations were included in this study. Among these, 2, 63, and 13 studies were deemed to have a low, medium, and high risk of bias, respectively. Based on the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) probability ranking results of NMA, laparoendoscopic single-site surgery-laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LESS-LAVH) demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of complications, infections, and 24-h postoperative pain scores. LAVH exhibited better performance in injuries and hospital stays, total laparoscopic hysterectomy showed the least blood loss, and vaginal hysterectomy had the shortest operation time. Conclusion: LESS-LAVH and LAVH are recommended options, if feasible. Meanwhile, VNOTEH can achieve comparable results to traditional laparoscopy but requires careful attention to the risk of injury and infection. Future research should aim to broaden the search scope by including high-quality, large-scale, multicenter RCTs.
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.