Whether preoperative hysteroscopy increases the dissemination of endometrial cancer cells: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine whether hysteroscopy (HSC) increases the risk of intraperitoneal dissemination in endometrial cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of multiple databases. Quality assessments of eligible studies were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scales. Positive peritoneal cytology (PPC) as the outcome of interest was compared between endometrial cancer patients with and without HSC. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated as a measure of effects. RESULTS: was 11%, and the heterogeneity was acceptable. The difference between the groups with stages I-II was statistically insignificant (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.75-2.99; p = 0.25). When liquid was used as the uterine distension medium during HSC and the intrauterine pressure was controlled under 80 mmHg, the difference between the two groups was also insignificant (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.50-2.79; p = 0.71). However, when the intrauterine pressure exceeded 80 mmHg, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.28-3.73; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that preoperative HSC in patients with endometrial cancer may increase the risk of intraperitoneal dissemination of malignant cells, which may be associated with intrauterine pressure >80 mmHg but not with stages I-II. There is no reason to avoid HSC for the diagnosis of endometrial cancer, especially in early stages, but intrauterine pressure should possibly be controlled below 80 mmHg.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".