Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39644179›Full record

GuidelineInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025

FIGO-GCH joint consensus statement on the current status and recommendations for the use of blind intrauterine procedures in the evaluation and management of women with suspected intrauterine pathologies.

Juan Diego Villegas-Echeverri, Rachel Pope, Magali Robert, Ivo Meinhold-Heerlein, Sergio Haimovich, José Carugno, Luis A Pacheco, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo

Abstract readConsensus StatementPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. FIGO-GCH joint consensus statement on the current status and recommendations for the use of blind intrauterine procedures in the evaluation and management of women with suspected intrauterine pathologies.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Gynecologic surgery for benign disease: Preserving reproductive potential.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    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

8 authors.

Juan Diego Villegas-EcheverriDivision of Benign Surgery, FIGO, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1903-1160
Rachel PopeCommittee on Obstetric Fistula, FIGO, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1097-7611
Magali RobertDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5429-9843
Ivo Meinhold-HeerleinCommittee on Minimal Access Surgery, FIGO, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0331-8781
Sergio HaimovichDepartment of Gynecology, Adelson School of Medicine, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9476-628X
José CarugnoObstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences Department, Minimally Invasive Gynecology Division, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5716-4933
Luis A PachecoHysteroscopy Unit, Hospital Quirón Salud, Málaga, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8521-3675
Attilio Di Spiezio SardoHysteroscopy Unit, Hospital Quirón Salud, Málaga, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6485-5735

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historically, blind intrauterine procedures such as dilation and curettage (D&C) and blind endometrial biopsies have been the primary approach for diagnosing and managing intrauterine pathologies. However, these techniques lack direct visualization, leading to diagnostic limitations, incomplete treatment, and increased complication rates. Despite substantial advances in hysteroscopic technology, including high-definition imaging and minimally invasive instruments, blind procedures remain widely used. This paper examines the limitations of blind intrauterine procedures, underscoring the advantages of hysteroscopy, which provides real-time visualization and allows for more accurate, targeted interventions. With the adoption of the "See and Treat" philosophy, hysteroscopy enables nearly 90% of procedures to be performed in an office setting, enhancing both patient convenience and outcomes. FIGO and GCH advocate for the gradual replacement of blind procedures with hysteroscopic approaches whenever feasible, noting that hysteroscopy improves diagnostic accuracy, reduces risks, and minimizes the need for repeat interventions. Recommendations include expanding access to hysteroscopy through targeted training, especially in low- and middle-income countries, where financial and logistical barriers limit access to advanced gynecological care. Furthermore, this paper emphasizes the importance of patient-centered care, encouraging transparent counseling to support informed decision-making.

Indexed as

HysteroscopyUterine DiseasesConsensusDilatation and CurettageFemaleHumansblind intrauterine proceduresdiagnostic accuracyhysteroscopyintrauterine pathologyminimally invasive gynecology

Identifiers

PMID39644179
PMCPMC11726146

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.