Do Patients With Blocked Tubes Experience More Pain During Outpatient Hysteroscopy Than Those With Patent Tubes?! A Prospective Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To study the impact of tubal blockage on pain experienced during and immediately after diagnostic outpatient hysteroscopy.Study design: A prospective comparative study (Canadian Task Force Classification II-2).Setting: Outpatient hysteroscopy clinic at a University Hospital.Patients and Methods: We included 140 women in the childbearing period attending outpatient hysteroscopy clinic for infertility or recurrent miscarriage. Patients were divided into two equal groups; Group- A included those with unilateral or bilateral tubal block (n=70) and Group-B included those with patent tubes on both sides (n =70). All patients had diagnostic outpatient hysteroscopy without the use of anaesthesia or analgesia. Outcomes measured included pain experienced during and immediately after the procedure assessed using a 100 mm -Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the successful completion of the procedure.Results: Patients with blocked tubes experienced statistically significant more pain than those with patent tubes both during and immediately after the procedure using a uterine filling pressure of 80 -100 mmHg. However, all procedures were successfully completed with no failures or complications.Conclusion: Blocked Fallopian tubes contribute to pain during and immediately after outpatient hysteroscopy when a uterine filling pressure of 80- 100 mmHg is used. However, this didn’t adversely affect the success rate of the procedure. For this group of patients, strategies to improve patients’ satisfaction need to be studied with a special attention for; the use of lower uterine filling pressures, shortening the procedure duration and/or the use of preemptive analgesics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".