Patients Satisfaction Undergoing Endometrial Thermal Balloon Ablation for the Treatment of Intractable Menorrhagia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Heavy amounts of menstrual blood loss regularly in three or more consecutive cycles are characterized as menorrhagia which has been shown to be present among in many peri-menopausal and premenopausal women. Aim: To determine the frequency of patients’ satisfaction with TBA for the treatment of intractable menorrhagia. Methods: This descriptive study was undertaken in Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lady Wallington Hospital Lahore from January to July 2017. A sample size of 200 patients was calculated and informed consent was taken to fill predesigned Performa. Prophylactic dose of 1g Ceftriaxon antibiotic was administered and Foly’s catheters were placed simultaneously in uterine cavity of patients after curettage and dilations. The uterine balloon catheter was then entered into the uterus and balloon was filled with sterile fluid. Results: A high number of 157(78.5%) women were found to be satisfied with thermal balloon ablation while different age groups presented an insignificant difference on level of satisfaction. Level of education and BMI had insignificant difference (p >0.05) while a significant difference (p<0.05) was observed among patients suffering from long duration of >6 months as compared to short duration of 3-6 months. Conclusion: Thermal balloon ablation is the method of choice for treatment of women suffering from menorrhagia and high number of patients revealed their trust on this method. Keywords: Menorrhagia, Dysmenorrhea, Blooding, Satisfaction, Endometrium.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".