The Efficacy and Safety of Transvaginal Ethanol Sclerotherapy in the Treatment of Endometrial Cysts—A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endometriosis, as a chronic disorder that is a source of severe pain ailments and infertility, requires a comprehensive therapeutic approach. Sclerotherapy, consisting of the administration of sclerosing agents into the cyst, is a constantly evolving minimally invasive treatment method for this disease. Hence, the main objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of its most often used variant, transvaginal ethanol sclerotherapy, on endometriosis-related symptoms, endometrial cyst recurrence rate, ovarian reserve, assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes, and pregnancy outcomes, as well as to assess potential complications resulting from this treatment. This systematic review was undertaken using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases on 24 November 2023. The risk of bias in included studies was assessed with the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the revised Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool for randomized controlled trials. From the 1141 records obtained from all databases, 16 studies have been included in this review. The use of ethanol sclerotherapy was characterized by a low rate of post-procedural complications. The recurrence rate of endometrial cysts after the procedure depended on the ethanol instillation time within the cyst. Although ethanol sclerotherapy had negligible influence on ovarian reserves when compared to laparoscopic cystectomy, the effects of both these methods on pregnancy outcomes were comparable. This review identifies that sclerotherapy is safe, provides significant relief of symptoms, and does not impair the reproductive potential of the patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".