MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effect of Menstrual Phase and Hormonal Contraception on Successful Bilateral Placement of the Essure Micro-Insert Tubal Coil

2009· article· en· W2009013052 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christine Lett, John Thiel

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsRegina Qu'Appelle Health Region
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEssureMedicineMenstrual cycleEndometriumFollicular phaseGynecologyObstetricsHormoneFamily planningPopulationResearch methodologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some investigators have suggested that insertion of the Essure microinsert tubal coil should be completed in the follicular phase to improve visualization of the tubal ostia and ensure successful placement. Others have proposed that hormonal endometrial suppression with drugs before the procedure also improves visualization. Timing the procedure according to the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle is impractical for many physicians due to scheduling problems and is difficult to accomplish in women who have irregular menstrual cycles. Moreover, suppressive hormonal therapy is contraindicated for some women and may be problematic for those who choose permanent sterilization to avoid the use of hormonal contraceptives. There are little or no data on the effects of cycle timing or endometrial suppression on improving successful Essure coil placement. This retrospective study investigated the effect of the menstrual cycle phase timing and preoperative endometrial suppression using hormonal contraceptives on the successful bilateral placement of the Essure microinsert coil. The study subjects were 84 patients of reproductive age who underwent the procedure at a Canadian ambulatory center. Data were obtained by a retrospective review of clinical charts (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). The primary study outcome measure was successful placement of the Essure micro-insert tubal coil (defined as bilateral visualization of the tubal ostia and cannulation with the coil on the first attempt). Visualization of the tubal ostia was achieved 81 of 84 patients (96%) and was followed by successful bilateral placement of the coil in 78 of 81 (96%). Among menstrual cycle phases, no difference was found in success rates for parameters of visualization, placement or visualization of proper coil placement (P = 0.959, P = 0.955, P = 0.307, respectively) or for these same parameters between women using hormonal versus nonhormonal methods of contraception (P = 0.557, P = 0.542, P = 0.506). These findings indicate that success rates for bilateral placement of the Essure micro-insert coil on first attempt are very high, and are not improved by menstrual phase timing or preoperative hormonal endometrial suppression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207