Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41000581›Full record

ArticleO&G open2024

Rethinking the Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Consult: Creating a Patient-Centered, See-and-Treat Model of Care.

Erica F Robinson, Vrunda B Desai, Scott Chudnoff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in O&G open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Erica F RobinsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Prisma Health Upstate, University of South Carolina Greenville, Greenville, South Carolina; the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; and the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health, Maimonides Health, New York, New York.
Vrunda B DesaiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Prisma Health Upstate, University of South Carolina Greenville, Greenville, South Carolina; the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; and the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health, Maimonides Health, New York, New York.
Scott ChudnoffDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Prisma Health Upstate, University of South Carolina Greenville, Greenville, South Carolina; the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; and the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health, Maimonides Health, New York, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historically, the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) has involved a multi-visit process that uses a multitude of care settings (eg, in-office, imaging, laboratory), with the potential for lengthy delays in care due to the now-commonplace scheduling difficulties many clinics face. Although there is strong evidence for the use of in-office uterine assessment as a best practice, uptake has been limited by the learning curve, technology acquisition costs, and other factors. However, due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical practice has faced rapid adaptations that have resulted in the redesigned clinical care model of evaluating this common gynecologic condition in a more patient-centered and streamlined way while maximizing the patient experience, health care efficiency, and physician engagement. This procedure would specifically involve one telehealth or initial visit to assess patient history, perform necessary laboratory testing, review results, and plan outpatient procedures to be conducted in the office or the operating room. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinics have, by necessity, implemented this proposed reimagined pathway in a variety of outpatient settings nationally. We propose that, moving forward, this new procedure be permanently adopted in clinics nationwide as the patient-focused evaluation strategy for AUB.

Identifiers

PMID41000581
PMCPMC12456473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.