Trial reportArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Accuracy of operative time prediction in endometriosis surgery: results of a prospective randomized multicenter pilot study.
Trial report in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether preoperative clinical Enzian scoring and digital rectal examination improve accuracy of operative time prediction and surgical outcomes in women undergoing surgery for endometriosis.
designProspective, randomized, multicenter pilot trial.
settingThree urban teaching hospitals certified as endometriosis centers. PATIENTS: A total of 107 women undergoing surgery for endometriosis.
interventionsThe participants were randomly assigned to three groups: Group 1 underwent clinical Enzian scoring combined with digital rectal examination (DRE); Group 2 underwent clinical Enzian scoring only; and Group 3 underwent digital rectal examination only. All patients received standard transvaginal ultrasound examinations.
main outcome measuresThe primary endpoint was defined as an absolute difference of ≤ 10 min between the estimated and the actual operative time. Secondary end points included conversion to laparotomy, abandonment of the operation, complete resection rate, need for secondary surgery, correspondence between the preoperative Enzian assessment and intraoperative findings, and postoperative pain (visual analog scale) and patient satisfaction.
resultsThe primary endpoint was achieved in 9 patients (23.7%) in Group 1, 16 patients (47.1%) in Group 2, and 15 patients (42.9%) in Group 3. Exploratory comparison of the three groups did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the proportion of accurate operative time estimations. Secondary endpoints, including conversion rate, abandonment of the operation, complete resection rate, reoperation rate, and patient-reported outcomes, were also comparable across the groups.
conclusionsThe results demonstrate that neither diagnostic strategy provided a measurable advantage in predicting operative time or improvement of surgical outcome parameters. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00040760.
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.