Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomised trial of hysterectomy, endometrial laser ablation, and transcervical endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding

Open access
Pinion, S B, Parkin, D E, Abramovich, D R, Naji, A, Alexander, D A, Russell, I T, Kitchener, H C·1994·BMJ

Abstract

Objective : To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endometrial laser ablation and transcervical resection of the endometrium compared with hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of women with dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Design : Prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting : Gynaecology department of a large teaching hospital. Subjects : 204 women who would otherwise have been undergoing hysterectomy for menorrhagia were recruited between August 1990 and March 1992 and randomly allocated to hysterectomy (n=99) or conservative (hysteroscopic) surgery (transcervical resection (n=52) and laser ablation (n=53)). Main outcome measures : Operative complications, postoperative recovery, relief of menstrual and other symptoms, patient satisfaction with treatment after six and 12 months. Results - Women treated by hysteroscopic surgery had less early morbidity and a significantly shorter recovery period than those treated by hysterectomy (median time to full recovery 2-4 weeks v 2-3 months, P<0.001). Twelve months later 17 women in the hysteroscopy group had had a hysterectomy, 11 for continuing symptoms; 11 women had had a repeat hysteroscopic procedure; 45 were amenorrhoeic or had only a brown discharge; and 35 had light periods. Dysmenorrhoea and premenstrual symptoms improved in most women in both groups. After 12 months 89% (79/89) in the hysterectomy group and 78% (75/96) in the hysteroscopy group were very satisfied with the effect of surgery (P<0.05); 95% (85/89) and 90% (86/96) thought that there had been an acceptable improvement in symptoms, and 72% (64/89) and 71% (68/96) would recommend the same operation to others. Conclusions : Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation was superior to hysterectomy in terms of operative complications and postoperative recovery. Satisfaction after hysterectomy was significantly higher, but between 70% and 90% of the women were satisfied with the outcome of hysteroscopic surgery. Hysteroscopic surgery can be recommended as an alternative to hysterectomy for dysfunctional uterine bleeding.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.309.6960.979

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 278

Metadata

Authors
Pinion, S. B., Parkin, D. E., Abramovich, D. R., Naji, A., Alexander, D. A., Russell, I. T., & Kitchener, H. C.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1994-10-15
Volume
309
Issue
6960
Pages
979-983
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2002992487
Cited by
278
References
13
FWCI
25.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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 trial of hysterectomy, endometrial laser ablation, and transcervical endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.309.6960.979
The paper
Pinion, S. B., Parkin, D. E., Abramovich, D. R., Naji, A., Alexander, D. A., Russell, I. T., & Kitchener, H. C. (1994). Randomised trial of hysterectomy, endometrial laser ablation, and transcervical endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6960.979

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.