ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2025
A European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy survey of hysteroscopic practice.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence, Deep Learning, and Computer Vision in Hysteroscopy: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hysteroscopy is recognised as the gold standard for diagnosing and treating intrauterine pathologies. Despite its broad acceptance, management practices appear to be diverse. Objectives: To explore gynaecologists' approaches to managing intrauterine pathologies, assessing their diagnostic habits, therapeutic strategies, and the surgical techniques adopted in clinical practice. Methods: The project was undertaken by the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) Special Interest Group on hysteroscopy. All ESGE members were invited to participate in the study through an online questionnaire hosted on the SurveyMonkey platform. Main Outcome Measures: Procedural setting, equipment availability, preferred instruments, pain management, and satisfaction with hysteroscopic practices. Results: Four hundred and fifty-one of 4000 (11.25%) gynaecologists from 57 countries responded. Two hundred eighty one (74%) of the participants performed hysteroscopy using a vaginoscopic approach. Pain management practices varied, with 46% of respondents reporting minimal or no use of analgesics. Procedural settings were distributed across office-based environments 107 (23.7%), outpatient facilities 183 (40.6%), and operating rooms 161 (35.6%). Two hundred and ninety-nine (87.9%) of respondents reported that diagnostic facilities were well-equipped, and 282 (74.4%) expressed satisfaction with the available operative equipment. Polypectomy was the most frequently performed operative procedure. Conclusions: The observed variability in the practice of hysteroscopy among ESGE members highlights the need for standardised guidelines to improve consistency and patient outcomes. What is New?: This survey provides an overview of the hysteroscopic management of intrauterine pathologies among ESGE members.
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.