SynthesisEpidemiologic reviews2026
Hysterectomy in women with disabilities: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Epidemiologic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Hysterectomy is the most frequently performed nonobstetric surgery in women. Women with disabilities face barriers to reproductive health care, and little is known about their hysterectomy risk. The objective of this systematic review was to compare hysterectomy risk among women with and without disabilities. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL Plus databases from inception to May 2024 using validated search strategies. We included peer-reviewed observational studies that compared hysterectomy in women with physical, sensory, cognitive, and intellectual or developmental disabilities with those without disabilities. Study characteristics and data were extracted using a standardized form; the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for quality assessment. Study findings were summarized narratively following Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. The search yielded 3686 unique records, of which 5 met our criteria. These included 1 retrospective cohort and 4 cross-sectional studies, which were conducted in the United States (n = 3), Canada (n = 1), and South Korea (n = 1), and ranged in size from 881 to 42 842 participants. Evidence from 4 studies indicated hysterectomy frequency was higher among women with disabilities (range: 6.1% to 22.8%) compared with those without disabilities (range: 2.2% to 18.6%). Three studies suggested the disparity in hysterectomy was greatest among premenopausal women. Quality assessment scores on the NOS ranged from 0 to 8 (median, 3), with limitations mostly related to measurement of the exposure and outcome. The limited research on this topic points to the need for more studies on hysterectomy among women with disabilities, given historical reproductive injustices faced by this population.
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.