ArticleJournal of mid-life health
A Comparative Analysis of the Pipelle Device and Conventional Dilatation and Curettage as Investigative Tools for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: Assessing Sample Adequacy and Patient Perspectives: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of mid-life health. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The primary objective of evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding is to exclude intrauterine abnormalities, particularly endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma. Therefore, all individuals over the age of 40 need to undergo endometrial sampling for histopathological evaluation before any definitive management strategies. Endometrial sampling may be conducted using various techniques, including dilatation and curettage (D and C) with metal curettes, such as Novak and Kevorkian, or through endometrial aspiration utilizing flexible instruments like the Pipelle aspirator. Despite the availability of the Pipelle, numerous medical centers continue to prefer D and C under anesthesia. A study at a tertiary medical center compared the adequacy of samples and the detection of malignancies between the Pipelle aspirator and D and C. This study further evaluated pain scores and the overall acceptability of both procedures among participants, providing valuable insights into their effectiveness and patient experience. Methodology: A comparative study was undertaken to evaluate the adequacy of samples for microscopic examination. This study compared outpatient endometrial sampling conducted with a Pipelle device to D and C performed under anesthesia. Furthermore, the assessment included the evaluation of postprocedure pain and patient satisfaction. Results: The analysis concluded no significant differences in sample adequacy between the two techniques examined. Women who underwent endometrial biopsies with anesthesia reported experiencing reduced levels of pain and expressed greater satisfaction with the procedure. Conclusion: While outpatient endometrial sampling utilizing the Pipelle aspirator is a feasible option in low-resource settings, it is essential to consider postoperative pain and patient satisfaction when evaluating practices in high-resource environments.
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.