POMMS: Pre-Operative Misoprostol in Myomectomy Surgery: A Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess the effect on intra-operative blood loss of using pre-operative sublingual misoprostol in abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy surgeries compared to placebo. Design Double-blind placebo-controlled randomised study. Setting A single tertiary Gynaecology Unit in Melbourne, Australia. Population Women 18 years old undergoing laparoscopic or open myomectomy surgery. Methods Fifty three women undergoing laparoscopic or abdominal myomectomy surgery for symptomatic uterine leiomyomas were randomised to pre-operative sublingual 400mcg misoprostol (n=26) or placebo (n=27). Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome measure was intra-operative blood loss. Results There was no significant difference in intra-operative blood loss at myomectomy surgery between the misoprostol and placebo groups. Intraoperative blood loss in the misoprostol treatment group was 306ml +/- 281ml, compared to 325 352 ml in the placebo group; P=0.83. Both groups were adequately matched for baseline demographics and myoma size. Conclusions The study was not able to demonstrate that pre-operative sublingual misoprostol use at laparoscopic and abdominal myomectomy surgery resulted in a statistically significant reduction in intra-operative blood loss. This study provides a foundation for adequately powered trials assessing the effect of sublingual misoprostol on blood loss at myomectomy. Funding Funding was supplied via an Australia Gynaecological Endoscopy and Surgery Society (AGES) Research Grant. There were no conflicts of interest in this trial. Keywords Leiomyoma, myomectomy, misoprostol, blood loss, sublingual Tweetable abstract Pre-operative sublingual misoprostol may reduce intra-operative blood loss during myomectomy surgery but confirmation is required from a larger study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".