ArticleThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2026
Missed, Misclassified or Misunderstood? Clinician Perspectives on Congenital Uterine Anomalies in Australia and New Zealand.
Article in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe clinical management of congenital uterine anomalies in Australia and New Zealand and identify areas requiring standardisation, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey of members of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Australasian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine.
methodsA 23-item Qualtrics survey assessed clinical experience, diagnostic approaches, imaging, classification use, training and challenges among clinicians providing reproductive healthcare. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. The survey was distributed via institutional channels: ASUM at multiple time points and its 2024 annual meeting, and RANZCOG over 5 weeks (July-August 2024) with committee approval. Ethics was obtained from the Australian National University Human Research Ethics Committee (ANU HREC 2023/1238). Descriptive analyses were performed.
resultsA total of 317 responses were analysed. CUAs were infrequently encountered, with septate, arcuate and bicornuate anomalies most commonly identified. Classification practices varied, with ESHRE/ESGE most frequently used, although no system was uniformly adopted. Referrals were most common for infertility care and second opinions, while surgical intervention was less frequent. Limited access to specialised imaging and subspeciality care was a key barrier, particularly outside metropolitan areas. Training and confidence varied by location, with greater limitations in remote settings. Clinicians supported standardised classification, improved imaging access and integration of CUA risk factors into national care systems. ASUM findings were consistent.
conclusionClinical management of CUAs in Australia and New Zealand remains variable, highlighting the need for greater standardisation, improved diagnostic access and multidisciplinary collaboration to support consistent, evidence-based care.
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.