High Patient Satisfaction with Office Hysteroscopy Using Tailored Analgesia Protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate patient satisfaction and analgesia preferences in patients undergoing office hysteroscopy. Materials and Methods: The study was a retrospective chart review of 209 cases of patients who underwent hysteroscopy in an office hysteroscopy suite in a tertiary level center—The Ottawa Hospital from November 2008 to January 2013. Data were collected and analyzed for procedures performed, indications for hysteroscopy, analgesia used, and number of failed procedures. Patient satisfaction questionnaires were reviewed evaluating patients' experience with office hysteroscopy and intra- and postoperative pain control. Results: Operative and diagnostic hysteroscopy was performed in 40% and 57% of cases, respectively. Most common indications for hysteroscopy were: abnormal uterine bleeding (21%); postmenopausal bleeding (17%); contraception (10%); and fertility assessment (10%). There were 8 cases of failed office hysteroscopy. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug pretreatment was administered to >70% of the patients. Less then 5% of patients required intravenous sedation, and 10.5% needed a paracervical block to complete office hysteroscopy. One hundred and sixty-seven patients completed the patient-satisfaction survey. Overall, >85% of patients reported receiving excellent-to–very good care in all aspects of their periprocedural experience. All responders agreed that they would recommend this procedure to a friend. Conclusions: Office hysteroscopy can be performed in a safe and effective manner. Patients are typically highly satisfied with their procedural experience and analgesia control. (J GYNECOL SURG 30:100)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".