The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy in the abdominal trial, and laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy in the vaginal trial. DESIGN: Two parallel, multicentre, randomised trials. SETTING: 28 UK centres and two South African centres. PARTICIPANTS: 1380 women were recruited; 1346 had surgery; 937 were followed up at one year. Primary outcome Rate of major complications. RESULTS: In the abdominal trial laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy (11.1% v 6.2%, P = 0.02; difference 4.9%, 95% confidence interval 0.9% to 9.1%) and the number needed to treat to harm was 20. Laparoscopic hysterectomy also took longer to perform (84 minutes v 50 minutes) but was less painful (visual analogue scale 3.51 v 3.88, P = 0.01) and resulted in a shorter stay in hospital after the operation (3 days v 4 days). Six weeks after the operation, laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with less pain and better quality of life than abdominal hysterectomy (SF-12, body image scale, and sexual activity questionnaires). In the vaginal trial we found no evidence of a difference in major complication rates between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy (9.8% v 9.5%, P = 0.92; difference 0.3%, -5.2% to 5.8%), and the number needed to treat to harm was 333. We found no evidence of other differences between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy except that laparoscopic hysterectomy took longer to perform (72 minutes v 39 minutes) and was associated with a higher rate of detecting unexpected pathology (16.4% v 4.8%, P = < 0.01). However, this trial was underpowered. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a significantly higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy. It also took longer to perform but was associated with less pain, quicker recovery, and better short term quality of life. The trial comparing vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy was underpowered and is inconclusive on the rate of major complications; however, vaginal hysterectomy took less time.
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
A body image scale for use with cancer patients
Hopwood, P., Fletcher, I., Lee, A., & Al Ghazal, S. (2001) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/s0959-8049(00)00353-1 · Cited by 984
Cited by
Manca, A., Hawkins, N., & Sculpher, M. J. (2005) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.944 · Cited by 1,024
Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies
Sculpher, M., Pang, F., Manca, A., Drummond, M., Golder, S., Urdahl, H., Davies, L., & Eastwood, A. (2004) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta8490 · Cited by 441
The use of unequal randomisation ratios in clinical trials: A review
Dumville, J. C., Hahn, S., Miles, J. N. V., & Torgerson, D. J. (2006) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2005.08.003 · Cited by 320
Uterine artery embolization for symptomatic uterine fibroids
Gupta, J. K., Sinha, A., Lumsden, M. A., & Hickey, M. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005073.pub4 · Cited by 269
Specialist nurse supported discharge in gynaecology: A randomised comparison and economic evaluation
Dawes, H. A., Docherty, T., Traynor, I., Gilmore, D. H., Jardine, A. G., & Knill-Jones, R. (2007) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.02.002 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Garry, R.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-01-17
- Volume
- 328
- Issue
- 7432
- Pages
- 129-0
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2151364172
- Cited by
- 603
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 47.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.37984.623889.f6
- The paper
- Garry, R. (2004). The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.37984.623889.f6
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.