The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomised controlled trial comparing endometrial resection with abdominal hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of menorrhagia
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of endometrial resection as a surgical treatment for menorrhagia. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Gynaecology department at a teaching hospital. Subjects Two hundred women needing surgical treatment for menorrhagia between January 1990 and May 1991. After withdrawal of four women 97 underwent hysterectomy and 99 underwent endometrial resection. Main outcome measures Patient satisfaction 4 months after surgery; post‐operative complications; length of hospital stay; duration of time before return to work, normal daily activities and sexual intercourse; change in premenstrual symptoms. Results The difference in patient satisfaction between endometrial resection (84 out of 99) and abdominal hysterectomy (89 out of 95) just reached statistical significance in favour of abdominal hysterectomy at 4 months after surgery (difference = 9%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.1%–17.5%). Post‐operative morbidity, length of hospital stay and time taken to return to work, normal daily activities and sexual intercourse were significantly less in the endometrial resection group. However, the premenstrual symptoms of dysmenorrhoea, bloating and breast tenderness were less frequent after hysterectomy. Conclusion In the short term, endometrial resection was almost as satisfactory as abdominal hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of menorrhagia, and was associated with less morbidity. However, even at 4 months after surgery, there was a failure rate of at least 10% in those in whom endometrial resection appeared complete. Longer term comparative studies are necessary before the widespread introduction of endometrial resection as an alternative to abdominal hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of menorrhagia.
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
Cited by
Practice Bulletin No. 183: postpartum hemorrhage
(2017) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002351 · Cited by 1,406
Spies, J. (2002) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01702-1 · Cited by 647
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
Pinion, S. B., Parkin, D. E., Abramovich, D. R., Naji, A., Alexander, D. A., Russell, I. T., & Kitchener, H. C. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6960.979 · Cited by 278
Metadata
- Authors
- Dwyer, N., Hutton, J., & Stirrat, G. M.
- Venue
- BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-03
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 237-243
- ISSN
- 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-0328
- 1471-0528
- OpenAlex
- W2112710784
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.25
- 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: Randomised controlled trial comparing endometrial resection with abdominal hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of menorrhagia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb15237.x
- The paper
- Dwyer, N., Hutton, J., & Stirrat, G. M. (1993). Randomised controlled trial comparing endometrial resection with abdominal hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of menorrhagia. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb15237.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.