ReviewCureus2025
A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Laparoscopic and Open Abdominal Myomectomy in Women With Multiple Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Oxycodone Combined with Dexmedetomidine versus Oxycodone Alone and Sufentanil for Early Postoperative Analgesia and Perioperative Outcomes After Laparoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Laparotomic vs. laparoscopic myomectomy: surgical outcomes from a tertiary center retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
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
Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumors of the uterus, affecting millions of women worldwide. Laparoscopic myomectomy (LM) and open myomectomy (OM) are the two most common surgical modalities for treating uterine fibroids, particularly in women wishing to preserve their uterus. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare intraoperative, postoperative, and obstetric outcomes of LM and OM in women with uterine fibroids. Adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, Ovid platform, and Google Scholar. Data analysis was conducted using an Excel spreadsheet, and meta-analysis was performed on Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Results were presented in the form of mean and standard deviation (SD), standardized mean difference (SMD), 95% confidence interval (CI), and risk ratio (RR). Heterogeneity (I²) was considered significant when it exceeded 50%. For the quality assessment of the risk of bias, ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools were used. GRADEpro was used to generate the summary of findings tables for primary and secondary outcomes. Analysis was conducted on 14 published studies, comprising 12 non-randomized trials, mainly retrospective, and 2 randomized trials. The review included studies from 12 different countries, spanning from 2000 to 2024, involving a total of 3,828 women with uterine fibroids (1,879 LM, 1,949 OM). The age of participants ranged from 18 to 50 years (mean age: LM, 39.82 ± 4.02; OM, 35.61 ± 3.83). Key findings indicated that LM resulted in significantly less blood loss than OM (SMD 1.21), shorter hospital stay (SMD 1.76), and less postoperative hemoglobin drop (SMD 1.44). However, LM had a longer duration of surgery (MD = 12.29 minutes,
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.