MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403965287 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087582

Safety of diagnostic hysteroscopy for the investigation of type II endometrial cancer: systematic review with meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4403965287 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wendy J Yang, Xiaoqi Zhao, Zhifu Zhi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangxi Medical University
KeywordsMedicineEndometrial cancerMeta-analysisHysteroscopyGynecologyReproductive medicineMEDLINEObstetricsGeneral surgeryCancerInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim The goal of this study is to evaluate the safety of diagnostic hysteroscopy (HSC) in type II endometrial cancer (EC). Methods We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library and the Chinese Medical Journal Full-Text Database until December 2023. Eligible trials were all cohort studies in which patients were allocated to diagnostic HSC group or dilation and curettage (D&C) group. Quality assessments of eligible studies were performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scales. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated as a measure of effects. Results Three trials were included in our analysis, which were all retrospective cohort studies. 696 patients with histologically proven type II EC were allocated to HSC or D&C before surgery. 257 patients underwent preoperative HSC, and 439 patients underwent D&C. The positive peritoneal cytology rate did not statistically differ between the groups (RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.00 to 3.61; p=0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage between the HSC and D&C groups (stage I/II: RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.24; p=0.25; stage III/IV: RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.09; p=0.18). There was no significant difference in recurrence between the HSC and D&C groups (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.32; p=0.66); the heterogeneity of the two included studies was acceptable (p=0.54, I2=0%). Conclusions Preoperative HSC in patients with type II EC does not increase the risk for cancer cell dissemination within the peritoneal cavity. Preoperative HSC does not progress the FIGO staging in patients with type II EC and does not increase the risk of tumour recurrence. There is no reason to avoid HSC for the diagnosis of type II EC currently. However, type II tumours generally are less well differentiated and have poorer prognoses than type I tumours. More prospective and adequately powered trials are required to clarify whether preoperative HSC in patients with type II EC is safe.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
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 score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.031
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.352
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.151 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207