Few concerns about evidence – feasibility and safety of performing cesarean myomectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
I really appreciate the evidence from the article “Feasibility and safety of performing caesarean myomectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis” published by Huang et al. [1] (The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058. 2020.1791816) with great enthusiasm. I congratulate the authors for concluding that Cesarean Myomectomy (CM) can be preferred over Cesarean section (CS) alone in the hands of expert surgeon and with good haemostasis techniques. I have some concerns with regard to methodology adopted by the authors
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.
Read the paper
Related studies
- In silico strategies for modeling RNA aptamers and predicting binding sites of their molecular targets
- Folic acid-hydrophilic polymer coated mesoporous silica nanoparticles target doxorubicin delivery
- Anti-phytopathogenic and plant growth promoting potential of endophytic fungi isolated from Dysoxylum gotadhora
- Mercury toxicity causes iron and sulfur deficiencies along with oxidative injuries in alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
- Suppression of lncRNA GAS6-AS2 alleviates sepsis-related acute kidney injury through regulating the miR-136-5p/OXSR1 axis in vitro and in vivo
- Assessing the Protective Effect of Moringa oleifera Extract against Bone Metastasis: An In Vitro Simulated Digestion Approach
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.