MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007105891 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000000764

Ulipristal Acetate Before Hysteroscopic Myomectomy: A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3007105891 on OpenAlexaff
Salvatore Giovanni Vitale, Simone Ferrero, Salvatore Caruso, Fabio Barra, Alejandro Marín-Buck, George A. Vilos, Amerigo Vitagliano, Péter Török, Michał Ciebiera, Antonio Cianci

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUlipristal acetateMedicineMyomaHysteroscopyLeiomyomaRandomized controlled trialObservational studyGynecologySystematic reviewMEDLINEGeneral surgerySurgeryUterusInternal medicineFamily planningPopulationResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance Uterine leiomyomas, also referred to as myomas or fibroids, are the most common benign tumors of the reproductive tract. Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is an active selective progesterone receptor modulator used as preoperative treatment for uterine myomas. Purpose The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the literature about the effects of UPA administration before hysteroscopic myomectomy. The clinical question in “PICO” format was in patients affected by uterine myomas undergoing operative hysteroscopic management, “Does UPA impact the surgical outcomes?” Evidence Acquisition We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase for original studies written in English (registered in PROSPERO CRD42018092201), using the terms “hysteroscopy” AND “ulipristal acetate” published up to March 2019. Original articles about UPA treatment before hysteroscopic myomectomy (randomized, observational, retrospective studies) were considered eligible. Results Our literature search produced 32 records. After exclusions, 4 studies were considered eligible for analysis. Results show that UPA does not worsen the overall technical difficulty of hysteroscopic myomectomy. Moreover, it may increase the chance of complete primary myomectomy in complex hysteroscopic procedures. Conclusions and Relevance Despite the positive results presented in this systematic review, low-quality evidence exists yet on the impact of UPA treatment before hysteroscopic myomectomy. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are required to establish the impact of UPA on surgical outcomes of patients treated for uterine myomas by hysteroscopy. Moreover, long-term outcomes of myomectomies after UPA treatment (such as frequency of myoma recurrence, recovery time, and quality of life) should be determined. Target Audience Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians, nurse practitioners. Learning Objectives After completing this activity, the learner should be better able to (1) identify the main characteristics of uterine myomas; (2) discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the use of UPA before hysteroscopic myomectomy; and (3) select the most appropriate therapeutic strategy based on the characteristics of the myoma(s) and the patient.

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)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicUterine Myomas and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207