ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2026
Selective versus routine preoperative testing in minor gynecologic surgical procedures: A two-center comparative cohort study of perioperative outcomes and resource utilization.
Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Routine preoperative testing remains common in minor gynaecological surgery, offering opportunities to reduce costs by avoiding unnecessary tests. Objectives: To compare the clinical safety and cost impact of selective versus routine preoperative laboratory testing in women undergoing minor gynecologic surgical procedures. Methods: Retrospective two-center comparative cohort study in two tertiary gynecologic centers adopting different preoperative testing policies. A total of 5240 consecutive women undergoing elective minor gynecologic surgical procedures for benign gynecologic pathology were included. Patients were managed according to two different preoperative strategies: routine laboratory testing (Roma cohort) and selective testing based on clinical assessment and comorbidity (Udine cohort). The study aims to compare perioperative outcomes and healthcare costs between routine and selective preoperative testing strategies. Outcomes: Intraoperative and postoperative complications, healthcare costs in two groups. Results: Postoperative complications were infrequent in both cohorts and did not differ significantly between routine and selective testing strategies (p = 0.345). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, selective testing was not independently associated with postoperative complications (p = 0.345). Independent predictors of complications included age (p = 0.041), ASA score ≥ 3 (p = 0.021), and operative time (p = 0.050). Selective testing was associated with a significant reduction in preoperative laboratory costs without negatively affecting perioperative safety. Conclusion: In minor gynecologic surgical procedures, selective preoperative laboratory testing based on clinical evaluation appears to be as safe as routine testing while reducing healthcare expenditures. What is new?: A more tailored and guideline-concordant preoperative assessment strategy in minor gynecologic surgery may reduce healthcare expenditure.
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.