Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42668789›Full record

ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2026

Operative hysteroscopy vs vacuum aspiration for treatment of retained products of conception: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ping Qiu, Sisi Huang, Li Lu, Yingying Chen, Qing Wu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Ping QiuPing Qiu Department of Operating Room, Huzhou Maternity & Child Health Care Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang Province 313000, P.R. China.
Sisi HuangSisi Huang Department of Operating Room, Huzhou Maternity & Child Health Care Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang Province 313000, P.R. China.
Li LuLi Lu Department of Nursing, Huzhou Maternity & Child Health Care Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang Province 313000, P.R. China.
Yingying ChenYingying Chen Department of Science and Education, Huzhou Maternity & Child Health Care Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang Province 313000, P.R. China.
Qing WuQing Wu Department of Operating Room, Huzhou Maternity & Child Health Care Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang Province 313000, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To generate comparative evidence on outcomes of hysteroscopic (HS) vs vacuum aspiration (VA) for retained products of conception (RPOC). Methodology: We included all study designs comparing HS with VA for RPOC and available on PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science up to 15 Results: Four studies were included. Meta-analysis showed that procedure duration was significantly longer with HS as compared to VA. The risk of intra-operative and post-operative complications did not differ between the two groups. The risk of incomplete evacuation of RPOC was significantly lower with HS as compared to VA with no difference in the risk of uterine perforation or hemorrhage ≥500ml. There was a tendency of higher risk of conversion to another procedure with HS as compared to VA. Meta-analysis showed that conception rates and subsequent risk of miscarriage did not significantly differ between the two groups. Conclusions: Limited evidence suggests that HS for RPOC may result in a lower risk of incomplete evacuation but has a longer procedural duration as compared to VA. The risk of complications and pregnancy outcomes do not seem to differ between the two. However, important fertility-related outcomes, including intrauterine adhesions, live birth rates, time to conception, and placental complications, could not be adequately assessed due to limited data. The quality of evidence is low due to scarce literature.

Indexed as

Hysteroscopic surgeryIncomplete abortionResidual trophoblastic tissueSuction aspiration

Identifiers

PMID42668789
PMCPMC13525526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.