ArticleBMJ open2025
Substitution of surgical care within benign gynaecology during COVID-19: waste of a good crisis? - a quantitative longitudinal study in the Netherlands.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the substitution of surgical procedures in benign gynaecology in the Netherlands.
designQuantitative longitudinal study evaluating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
settingNationwide healthcare delivery was analysed across six benign gynaecological pathways from 2016 to 2022 using Vektis and Dutch Hospital Data (DHD), accessed via Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek).
participantsThe study focused on six benign gynaecological pathways classified using Dutch Diagnosis Treatment Combinations (DTCs): heavy menstrual blood loss (G11), uterine fibroids (G15), endometriosis (G17), prolapse (G25), infertility treatment (F11) and first trimester pregnancy complications (Z12). All patients receiving care within these pathways between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2022 were included. Exclusions applied to all patients under 18 years old and, only within the menstrual disorder pathway, patients over 51 years old to exclude most postmenopausal blood loss cases where no alternative treatment applies.
interventionsCohorts from the initial pandemic year (2020) were compared with four prepandemic cohorts (2016-2019) and late-pandemic (2021) and postpandemic (2022) cohorts. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the trend in the total number of patients in surgical and non-surgical procedure groups across cohort periods. Secondary outcomes included trends within individual pathways.
resultsThe analysis identified a significant reduction in benign gynaecological care during 2020, with an 18.3% (p<0.001) decrease in surgical procedures and a 6% (p=0.02) decrease in non-surgical procedures across all pathways. During the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical care showed the largest significant declines in infertility treatment (-19.3%, p<0.001) and prolapse and heavy menstrual bleeding (both -17.5%, p<0.001), while non-surgical care decreased less markedly, with the largest significant drop in prolapse care (-10.4%, p=0.001). Non-surgical procedures generally returned to pre-pandemic levels, whereas surgical care remained reduced. These differences were conducted using regression models that adjusted for time trends and the COVID-19-related impact.
conclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted both surgical and non-surgical procedures within benign gynaecological pathways. Reduced care uptake during the pandemic waves was not recovered but instead forgone. The reduction in surgical procedures did not correspond with increased use of non-surgical alternatives. Future research should prioritise evaluating the long-term impacts of this disruption on patients and society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.