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.
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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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 · 2025Guideline
- 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 · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.