Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 23;2021(2):CD000329. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000329.pub4

Gannon 1991.

Study characteristics
Methods Randomisation by sealed envelope
Single‐centre, parallel‐group, no blinding
Setting: Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading, UK
Number of women randomly assigned: 54
Number of withdrawals: 3 (1 from the resection group who wanted hysterectomy, 1 from the hysterectomy group who wanted resection, and 1 from the hysterectomy group who postponed surgery and was treated elsewhere)
Power calculation and intention‐to‐treat analysis not reported
Participants Women with median age 40 years awaiting abdominal hysterectomy for menorrhagia
Exclusion criteria: leiomyomata; endometrial or cervical neoplasia; concomitant ovarian pathology, PID or endometriosis
Interventions Treatment 1: endometrial resection (TCRE): 25 women
Treatment 2: abdominal hysterectomy: 26 women
Duration: mean 12 months' follow‐up
Procedures performed by 'experienced surgeons on routine operating lists'
Endometrial resection group given an intramuscular injection of medroxyprogesterone acetate 150 mg 4–6 weeks before surgery to reduce endometrial thickness.
Outcomes
  • Change in MBL

  • Duration of surgery (minutes)

  • Duration of hospital stay (days)

  • Time to return to work (weeks)

  • Postoperative complications

  • Requirement for further surgery

  • Resource cost of surgery (theatre and ward) (per woman)

Notes Author contacted but no reply received.
Source of funding: not reported.
No information stated regarding trial registration
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Randomisation sequence not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Sealed envelope but no other safeguards described.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes High risk Not feasible for a comparison of surgical techniques.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Low risk Dropouts minimal and not likely to cause bias.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No prior protocol identified.
Other bias Low risk Groups appeared balanced at baseline, although very few parameters examined.