Cited by 1Uterine Myomas and TreatmentsPelvic floor disorders treatmentsEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Total versus subtotal hysterectomy associated with laparoscopic colposacropexy: A prospective randomized controlled trial

Open access
Illiano, E., Natale, F., Marchesi, A., Zucchi, A., Motta, G., Costantini, E.·2020·European Urology Open Science

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2666-1683(20)33672-7

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Illiano, E., Natale, F., Marchesi, A., Zucchi, A., Motta, G., & Costantini, E.
Venue
European Urology Open Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-07
Volume
19
Pages
e1608-e1609
ISSN
2666-1683 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3042437004
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Urology Open Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Keywords
total hysterectomy, subtotal hysterectomy, pelvic organ prolapse, sacrocolpopexy, surgical approach comparison

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