Trial reportPloS one2025
Effectiveness and safety of an absorbable modified polymer starch powder hemostat versus usual care in gynecology procedures: A prospective, multi-center, and randomized study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02835391 (A Prospective, Multi-Centre, Randomized, Safety and Effectiveness Study of PerClot Compared to Usual Care When Used During Gynaecology Procedures), which is not on this 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.
A Prospective, Multi-Centre, Randomized, Safety and Effectiveness Study of PerClot Compared to Usual Care When Used During Gynaecology Procedures
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of an absorbable modified polymer starch powder hemostat (AMP-SPH) compared with standard care to control hemostasis when used in adult subjects during open or laparoscopic gynecological procedures for both benign and malignant diseases. Methods: Prospective, multi-center, randomized, and interventional phase IV study conducted on consecutive patients, aged ≥18 years, who underwent an open or laparoscopic gynecological procedure between November 2015 and July 2017 in a third-level Hospital. Study participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either treatment with an AMP-SPH (AMP group) or usual standard care (SC group). The hemostatic treatment administered to the SC group was at the investigator's discretion. The primary effectiveness endpoint of the study was the achievement of hemostasis (yes/no) within 10 minutes. Results: Ninety patients, 44 (48.9%) in the AMP group and 46 (51.1%) in the SC group were included in the analysis. the AMP group, 97.7% (43/44) of patients achieved hemostasis as compared to the 93.5% (43/46) of subjects in the SC group (mean difference: 4.2%; 95%CI: -4.1% to 12.6%; p = .337). The time required to achieve hemostasis was lower in the AMP group (1.91 ± 1.15 minutes) than in the SC group (2.28 ± 2.09 minutes), although not significant (p = .309). A higher proportion of patients in the SC group (17.9%) was observed to require blood products compared to those in the AMP group (4.8%).A total of 29 adverse events (AEs) (24 non-serious and 5 serious AEs) were reported, 12 AEs in the AMP group and 17 in the SC group.
conclusionsAccording to the results of this study, AMP-SPH was not inferior to standard care in the control of bleeding for patients undergoing gynecology procedures and the cessation of bleeding was trending to be faster with the use of AMP-SPH than with standard methods.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02835391.
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.