MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402615322 · doi:10.3390/jcm13185494

Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Misoprostol Prior to Hysteroscopy in Women with Difficult Cervix: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4402615322 on OpenAlexaff
Atieh Karimzadeh, Leila Allahqoli, Hamid Salehiniya, Soheil Hanjani, Ghazal Namavari, Abbas Fazel Anvari‐Yazdi, Kobra Tahermanesh, İbrahim Alkatout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMisoprostolHysteroscopyMeta-analysisCervixObstetricsGynecologyPregnancyInternal medicineAbortionCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Hysteroscopy has been used as both a diagnostic and therapeutic tool for intrauterine pathologies under direct visualization. However, this procedure may be associated with an increased risk of complications during entry, which can be reduced by cervical ripening before the operation. The efficacy of misoprostol in this context is influenced by factors such as estrogen levels, parity, and the mode of previous deliveries. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of misoprostol in women with a challenging cervix while mitigating the influence of confounding variables. Methods: Three electronic databases, namely PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science, were searched until 14 May 2024. Randomized controlled trials focusing on postmenopausal patients, nulliparous women, and multiparous women with no prior history of vaginal delivery, undergoing hysteroscopy were included. The cervical width, time needed for cervical dilation, and the need for additional dilatation alongside the complications and adverse effects from all included studies were collected and analyzed using R (version 4.2.3). Results: Seven studies on premenopausal women and three on postmenopausal women were included. In premenopausal women, misoprostol significantly increased cervical width compared to placebo (SMD = 2.2, 95% CI 0.9 to 3.4) and reduced the need for additional cervical dilatation (OR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.74). No significant difference was found in the time required for cervical dilation between misoprostol and placebo groups. In postmenopausal women, misoprostol did not significantly affect cervical width compared to placebo (SMD = −0.55, 95% CI −1.3 to 0.21). Conclusions: Misoprostol is beneficial for cervical dilation in premenopausal women without a prior history of vaginal delivery but less effective in postmenopausal patients. While associated with postoperative risks, it reduces hysteroscopy-related complications. Future research should address discrepancies by controlling the confounding variables like menopausal status, parity, and mode of delivery to enhance the understanding of misoprostol’s effects and pinpoint the specific patient populations that would derive the greatest benefits from its use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.032
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207