The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effectiveness of hysterectomy
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the effectiveness of hysterectomy in relieving adverse symptoms and to identify factors associated with lack of symptom relief. METHODS: In a 2-year prospective study, data were collected before and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after hysterectomy in 1,299 women who had hysterectomies for benign conditions at 28 hospitals across Maryland. Effectiveness was measured in terms of relief of symptoms such as problematic vaginal bleeding, pelvic pain, and urinary incontinence. Psychologic function and quality of life before and after surgery also were assessed. RESULTS: Symptom severity, depression, and anxiety levels decreased significantly after hysterectomy and quality of life improved, particularly in the area of social function. However, 8% of women had at least as many symptoms at problematic-severe levels 1 and 2 years after hysterectomy as before. In multiple logistic regression, several presurgical patient characteristics predicted lack of symptom relief, including therapy for emotional or psychologic problems, depression, and household income of $35,000 or less. Bilateral oophorectomy predicted lack of symptom relief at 24 months but not at 12 months after hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: Significant improvements were seen after hysterectomy for all three aspects of health status (symptoms, psychologic function, and quality of life), which persisted or continued to improve throughout the 2 years of follow-up. However, hysterectomy did not relieve symptoms for some women, particularly those who had low incomes or were in therapy at the time of hysterectomy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The MOS Short-form General Health Survey: Reliability and Validity in a Patient Population
Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E. (1988) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198807000-00007 · Cited by 3,339
Review of Software to Fit Generalized Estimating Equation Regression Models
Horton, N. J., & Lipsitz, S. R. (1999) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1999.10474451 · Cited by 387
Cited by
Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000-2004
Whiteman, M. K., Hillis, S. D., Jamieson, D. J., Morrow, B., Podgornik, M. N., Brett, K. M., & Marchbanks, P. A. (2008) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.05.039 · Cited by 639
Outcomes after Total versus Subtotal Abdominal Hysterectomy
Thakar, R., Ayers, S., Clarkson, P., Stanton, S., & Manyonda, I. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa013336 · Cited by 419
Salpingo-oophorectomy at the Time of Benign Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review
Evans, E. C., Matteson, K. A., Orejuela, F. J., Alperin, M., Balk, E. M., El-Nashar, S., Gleason, J. L., Grimes, C., Jeppson, P., Mathews, C., et al. (2016) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000001592 · Cited by 116
Differences in uterine innervation at hysterectomy
Quinn, M. J., & Kirk, N. (2002) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1067/mob.2002.130007 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Kjerulff, K.
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 319-326
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1976738840
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 15.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effectiveness of hysterectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00544-x
- The paper
- Kjerulff, K. (2000). Effectiveness of hysterectomy. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00544-x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.