ArticleBMC surgery2024
The application value of 5 Fr non-contact hysteroscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine diseases in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.
Article in BMC surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the application value of 5 Fr non-contact hysteroscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine diseases in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.
methodsA total of 200 perimenopausal and postmenopausal patients who were to undergo hysteroscopy for intrauterine diseases from October 2022 to January 2024 were selected as the research objects, and the clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. According to the different treatment methods, these subjects were divided into a 5Fr non-contact hysteroscopic group (5Fr group) and a traditional hysteroscopic group (traditional group), with 100 cases in each group. The surgery-related indicators, postoperative-related indicators, intraoperative/postoperative disease diagnosis, and satisfaction of the patients in the two groups were compared.
resultsCompared with the traditional group, the examination time of the 5Fr group was significantly shortened, and the proportion of intraoperative bleeding ≤ 5 mL was significantly increased (P < 0.05). Compared with the traditional group, the proportion of abnormal heart rate/blood pressure and nausea/vomiting, and pain score were significantly reduced in the 5Fr group (P < 0.05), while the proportion of postoperative bleeding time ≤ 1 week and postoperative abdominal pain time ≤ 2 h were significantly increased in the 5Fr group (P < 0.05). The satisfaction rate of the 5Fr group was 91.00% (41.00% relatively satisfied + 50.00% very satisfied), which was much higher than 75% (37.00% relatively satisfied + 38.00% very satisfied) in the traditional group (P < 0.05).
conclusion5Fr non-contact hysteroscopy had similar clinical effects to the traditional hysteroscopy, and the 5Fr non-contact hysteroscopy technology made up for the shortcomings of the traditional hysteroscopy, which could significantly reduce the pain and intraoperative bleeding of patients, and improve patient satisfaction.
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.