Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Uterine Fibroids: Uterine Artery Embolization versus Abdominal Hysterectomy for Treatment—A Prospective, Randomized, and Controlled Clinical Trial

Pinto, Isabel, Chimeno, Paloma, Romo, Alicia, Paúl, Laura, Haya, Javier, de la Cal, Miguel A., Bajo, José·2003·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of uterine artery embolization (UAE) in the management of bleeding in patients with uterine fibroids and to compare UAE with hysterectomy, particularly with regard to length of hospital stay and associated complications (ie, safety). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective clinical trial was performed with patients who were randomly assigned to one of two groups: patients who were offered the option of undergoing either UAE or hysterectomy (group 1) and patients who were not informed of the alternative treatment-that is, UAE (group 2). The primary variables that were considered for evaluation of the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of the two procedures were, respectively, bleeding cessation, total length of hospital stay, and resulting complications. The lengths of hospital stay in the two study arms were compared on an intent-to-treat basis. Owing to crossover between the treatment arms, however, effectiveness and safety were evaluated on the basis of the actual treatment received. RESULTS: The clinical success rate for the patients who underwent UAE, which was based on the cessation of bleeding, was 86% (31 of 36 patients). The mean hospital stay for group 1 was 4.14 days shorter than that for group 2 (P <.001). Ten (25%) of the 40 patients who underwent UAE experienced minor complications, in contrast to four (20%) of the 20 who underwent hysterectomy and experienced major complications. CONCLUSION: Compared with hysterectomy, UAE is safe and effective for treatment of bleeding fibroids, necessitates a shorter hospital stay, and results in fewer major complications.

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 · 10.1148/radiol.2262011716

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.

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

Cited by

See all 262

Metadata

Authors
Pinto, I., Chimeno, P., Romo, A., Paúl, L., Haya, J., de la Cal, M. A., & Bajo, J.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2003-02
Volume
226
Issue
2
Pages
425-431
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2163967299
Cited by
262
References
0
FWCI
29.73
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: Uterine Fibroids: Uterine Artery Embolization versus Abdominal Hysterectomy for Treatment—A Prospective, Randomized, and Controlled Clinical Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2262011716
The paper
Pinto, I., Chimeno, P., Romo, A., Paúl, L., Haya, J., de la Cal, M. A., & Bajo, J. (2003). Uterine Fibroids: Uterine Artery Embolization versus Abdominal Hysterectomy for Treatment—A Prospective, Randomized, and Controlled Clinical Trial. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2262011716

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.