Health Technology Assessment

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
VOLUME 19 ISSUE 61 JULY 2015

ISSN 1366-5278
A randomised controlled trial of Outpatient versus

inpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) for abnormal
uterine bleeding
T Justin Clark, Lee J Middleton, Natalie AM Cooper, Lavanya Diwakar,

Elaine Denny, Paul Smith, Laura Gennard, Lynda Stobert, Tracy E Roberts,
Versha Cheed, Tracey Bingham, Sue Jowett, Elizabeth Brettell,
Mary Connor, Sian E Jones and Jane P Daniels
DOI 10.3310/hta19610
A randomised controlled trial of
Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp
Treatment (OPT) for abnormal
uterine bleeding
T Justin Clark,1,2* Lee J Middleton,3

Natalie AM Cooper,4 Lavanya Diwakar,5
Elaine Denny,6 Paul Smith,1,2 Laura Gennard,3
Lynda Stobert,6 Tracy E Roberts,5 Versha Cheed,3
Tracey Bingham,1 Sue Jowett,5 Elizabeth Brettell,3
Mary Connor,7 Sian E Jones8 and Jane P Daniels2,3
1Birmingham Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston,
Birmingham, UK
2School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, College of Medical and
Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

3Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
4Women’s Health Research Unit, The Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of
London, London, UK
5Health Economics Unit, School of Health and Population Sciences, College of
Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

6Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Health, Birmingham City
University, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK

7Jessop Wing, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Sheffield, UK
8Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
*Corresponding author
Declared competing interests of authors: Mr Clark reports receiving honoraria for training from
Hologic and Ethicon, which make endoscopic instruments [Myosure (Hologic, Marlborough, MA, USA) and
Versapoint (Gynecare, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA)] suitable for removing uterine pathologies such as
polyps. Since completing the OPT Trial recruitment (but not before completing writing this report) he
received £40,000 funding from Smith & Nephew to evaluate a product (TruClear) also suitable for
removing uterine polyps and fibroids. Dr Smith reports grants from National Institute for Health Research
Grants during the conduct of the study, and grants from Smith & Nephew outside the submitted work.
Published July 2015

DOI: 10.3310/hta19610
This report should be referenced as follows:
Clark TJ, Middleton LJ, Cooper NAM, Diwakar L, Denny E, Smith P, et al. A randomised controlled
trial of Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) for abnormal uterine bleeding. Health
Technol Assess 2015;19(61).
Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted in Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Excerpta

Medica/EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch®) and Current Contents®/
Clinical Medicine.
Health Technology Assessment HTA/HTA TAR
ISSN 1366-5278 (Print)
ISSN 2046-4924 (Online)
Impact factor: 5.116
Health Technology Assessment is indexed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the ISI Science Citation Index.
This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).
Editorial contact: [email protected]
The full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the
report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journal

Reports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they
are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.
Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed ‘systematic’ when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to
minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.
HTA programme
The HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research
information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
‘Health technologies’ are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation
and long-term care.
The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute
for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC)
policy decisions.
For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta
This report
The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 06/404/84. The contractual start date
was in April 2008. The draft report began editorial review in October 2013 and was accepted for publication in February 2014. The authors
have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher
have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft
document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.
This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by
authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme
or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the
interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA
programme or the Department of Health.
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015. This work was produced by Clark et al. under the terms of a commissioning
contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and
study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement
is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be
addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre,
Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
Published by the NIHR Journals Library (www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk), produced by Prepress Projects Ltd, Perth, Scotland
(www.prepress-projects.co.uk).
Editor-in-Chief of Health Technology Assessment and NIHR
Journals Library
Professor Tom Walley Director, NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies and Director of the HTA Programme, UK
NIHR Journals Library Editors
Professor Ken Stein Chair of HTA Editorial Board and Professor of Public Health, University of Exeter Medical
School, UK
Professor Andree Le May Chair of NIHR Journals Library Editorial Group (EME, HS&DR, PGfAR, PHR journals)
Dr Martin Ashton-Key Consultant in Public Health Medicine/Consultant Advisor, NETSCC, UK
Professor Matthias Beck Chair in Public Sector Management and Subject Leader (Management Group),
Queen’s University Management School, Queen’s University Belfast, UK
Professor Aileen Clarke Professor of Public Health and Health Services Research, Warwick Medical School,
University of Warwick, UK
Dr Tessa Crilly Director, Crystal Blue Consulting Ltd, UK
Dr Peter Davidson Director of NETSCC, HTA, UK
Ms Tara Lamont Scientific Advisor, NETSCC, UK
Professor Elaine McColl Director, Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Health and Society,
Newcastle University, UK
Professor William McGuire Professor of Child Health, Hull York Medical School, University of York, UK
Professor Geoffrey Meads Professor of Health Sciences Research, Faculty of Education, University of Winchester, UK
Professor John Norrie Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, UK
Professor John Powell Consultant Clinical Adviser, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), UK
Professor James Raftery Professor of Health Technology Assessment, Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine,
University of Southampton, UK
Dr Rob Riemsma Reviews Manager, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, UK
Professor Helen Roberts Professor of Child Health Research, UCL Institute of Child Health, UK
Professor Helen Snooks Professor of Health Services Research, Institute of Life Science, College of Medicine,
Swansea University, UK
Professor Jim Thornton Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences,
University of Nottingham, UK
Please visit the website for a list of members of the NIHR Journals Library Board:
www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/about/editors
Editorial contact: [email protected]
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk

DOI: 10.3310/hta19610 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2015 VOL. 19 NO. 61
Abstract
A randomised controlled trial of Outpatient versus inpatient

Polyp Treatment (OPT) for abnormal uterine bleeding
T Justin Clark,1,2* Lee J Middleton,3 Natalie AM Cooper,4

Lavanya Diwakar,5 Elaine Denny,6 Paul Smith,1,2 Laura Gennard,3
Lynda Stobert,6 Tracy E Roberts,5 Versha Cheed,3 Tracey Bingham,1
Sue Jowett,5 Elizabeth Brettell,3 Mary Connor,7 Sian E Jones8
and Jane P Daniels2,3
1Birmingham Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston,
Birmingham, UK
2School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, College of Medical and
Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

3Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
4Women’s Health Research Unit, The Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London,
London, UK
5Health Economics Unit, School of Health and Population Sciences, College of Medical and Dental
Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

6Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Health, Birmingham City University,
Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
7Jessop Wing, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Sheffield, UK
8Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
*Corresponding author [email protected]
Background: Uterine polyps cause abnormal bleeding in women and conventional practice is to remove
them in hospital under general anaesthetic. Advances in technology make it possible to perform
polypectomy in an outpatient setting, yet evidence of effectiveness is limited.
Objectives: To test the hypothesis that in women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) associated with
benign uterine polyp(s), outpatient polyp treatment achieved as good, or no more than 25% worse,
alleviation of bleeding symptoms at 6 months compared with standard inpatient treatment. The hypothesis
that response to uterine polyp treatment differed according to the pattern of AUB, menopausal status and
longer-term follow-up was tested. The cost-effectiveness and acceptability of outpatient polypectomy
was examined.
Design: A multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, incorporating a cost-effectiveness
analysis and supplemented by a parallel patient preference study. Patient acceptability was evaluated by
interview in a qualitative study.
Setting: Outpatient hysteroscopy clinics and inpatient gynaecology departments within UK NHS hospitals.
Participants: Women with AUB – defined as heavy menstrual bleeding (formerly known as menorrhagia)
(HMB), intermenstrual bleeding or postmenopausal bleeding – and hysteroscopically diagnosed
uterine polyps.
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015. This work was produced by Clark et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health.
This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that
suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR
vii
Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton
SO16 7NS, UK.
ABSTRACT
Interventions: We randomly assigned 507 women, using a minimisation algorithm, to outpatient

polypectomy compared with conventional inpatient polypectomy as a day case in hospital under
general anaesthesia.
Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was successful treatment at 6 months, determined by
the woman’s assessment of her bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, procedure
feasibility, acceptability and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Results: At 6 months, 73% (166/228) of women who underwent outpatient polypectomy were
successfully treated compared with 80% (168/211) following inpatient polypectomy [relative risk (RR) 0.91,
95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.02]. The lower end of the CIs showed that outpatient polypectomy
was at most 18% worse, in relative terms, than inpatient treatment, within the 25% margin of
non-inferiority set at the outset of the study. By 1 and 2 years the corresponding proportions were similar
producing RRs close to unity. There was no evidence that the treatment effect differed according to any
of the predefined subgroups when treatments by variable interaction parameters were examined. Failure
to completely remove polyps was higher (19% vs. 7%; RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1) with outpatient
polypectomy. Procedure acceptability was reduced with outpatient compared with inpatient polyp
treatment (83% vs. 92%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97). There were no significant differences in quality
of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios at 6 and 12 months for inpatient treatment were
£1,099,167 and £668,800 per additional QALY, respectively.
Conclusions: When treating women with AUB associated with uterine polyps, outpatient polypectomy
was non-inferior to inpatient polypectomy at 6 and 12 months, and relatively cost-effective. However,
patients need to be aware that failure to remove a polyp is more likely with outpatient polypectomy and
procedure acceptability lower.
Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 65868569.
Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be
published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website
for further project information.
viii
Contents
List of tables xv
List of figures xvii
List of abbreviations xix
Plain English summary xxi
Scientific summary xxiii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Background 1
Definition of a uterine polyp 1
Aetiology of uterine polyps 1
Diagnosis of uterine polyps 1
Prevalence and epidemiology of uterine polyps 2
Clinical significance of uterine polyps 2
Natural history 2
Oncogenesis 2
Abnormal uterine bleeding 3
Abnormal uterine bleeding and uterine polyps 4
Treatment of uterine polyps 4
Expectant management 4
Medical management 4
Surgical management: polypectomy 5
Evidence for uterine polyp treatment in abnormal uterine bleeding 6
Systematic Review performed during the Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment Trial 6
Methods 6
Search strategy 6
Study selection 7
Inclusion criteria 7
Type of study included 7
Study quality assessment 7
Synthesis of results 7
Results 7
Results of search 7
Included studies 8
Study quality and design 8
Participant characteristics 8
Interventions 11
Outcomes 11
Discussion 15
Current practice: surgical method and setting 15
Need for a large simple trial of outpatient uterine polypectomy compared with
inpatient uterine polypectomy in abnormal uterine bleeding 16
Objectives 17
Methods 18
Inclusion criteria 18
ix
SO16 7NS, UK.
CONTENTS
Exclusion criteria 18
Interventions 18
Outcomes 18
Randomisation and blinding 19
Statistical considerations 19
Summary of results 19
Bleeding response 19
Quality of life 19
Interpretation 23
Impact on planning for a definitive trial 23
Clinical factors and prognosis 23
Design implications for the substantive study 24
Objectives of the Outpatient polyp treatment study 24
Chapter 2 Methods of randomised controlled trial and preference study 25

Objectives 25
Study design 25
Screening and consent prior to outpatient hysteroscopy 26
Determining eligibility 26
Randomisation 27
Women with strong preference for treatment setting 27
Stratification of randomisation 27
Treatment allocations 28
Surgical procedures 28
Withdrawal from the Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment Trial 29
Serious and unexpected adverse events 29
Other management at discretion of local doctors 29
Follow-up and outcome measures 29
Format 29
Timing of assessments 29
Primary clinical outcome measure: treatment success 29
Secondary clinical outcome measures 30
Statistical considerations 31
Statistical analysis 31
Trial management 33
Independent Trial Steering Committee 33
Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee: determining when clear answers have emerged 33
Research governance 33
Ethical approval 34
Chapter 3 Results of the randomised controlled trial 35

Recruitment 35
Patients and follow-up 38
Operative results 38
Serious adverse events 42
Treatment success: primary outcome 42
Major secondary outcomes 45
Procedure acceptability 48
Other outcomes 48
Discussion of the randomised controlled trial 51
Principal findings 51
Strengths and limitations of the study 53
Implications for practice 54
Conclusion 55
x
Chapter 4 Results of the preference study 57

Recruitment 57
Patients and follow-up 57
Operative results 57
Serious adverse events 64
Treatment success 64
Major secondary outcomes 64
Procedure acceptability 64
Other outcomes 67
Discussion of the preference study 68
Conclusions 69
Chapter 5 Economic analysis of the randomised controlled trial 71

Introduction 71
Methods 71
Costs 71
Outcomes 73
Assumptions 73
Analysis 73
Base-case analysis 74
Intention to treat 74
Per-protocol analysis 74
Missing data 74
Skewed data 76
Sensitivity analysis 76
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis 77
Results 78
Deterministic sensitivity analysis 78
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis 78
Discussion 81
Conclusion 82
Chapter 6 Patient acceptability and experience of outpatient polyp treatment 83

Introduction 83
Methodology 84
Sample 84
Method 84
Data analysis 85
Findings 85
Characteristics of sample 85
Participation in a randomised trial 85
Experience of the procedure 86
Pain 87
Information needs 88
Differences between inpatient and outpatient experience 89
Differences between randomised and preference patients 90
xi
SO16 7NS, UK.
CONTENTS
Minority experiences 90
Satisfaction with the procedure 91
Discussion 91
Conclusion 92
Chapter 7 Discussion 93
Evidence of effectiveness 93
Evidence of cost-effectiveness 94
Evidence of acceptability 94
Recommendations for research 96
Acknowledgements 99
References 103
Appendix 1 Statistical analysis plan 115
Appendix 2 Enrolment form: all participants 123
Appendix 3 Follow-up forms 129
Appendix 4 Assessment of inpatient treatment experience 133
Appendix 5 Assessment of outpatient treatment experience 135
Appendix 6 Patient cost questionnaire 137
Appendix 7 Polyp treatment form 141
Appendix 8 Post-treatment discharge form 145
Appendix 9 CONSORT checklist (including details with respect to extension for

non-inferiority trials) 149
Appendix 10 Results of primary end point (treatment success): sensitivity analyses 151
Appendix 11 Results of primary end point (treatment success): comparison with

European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions score 153
Appendix 12 Results of adjusted analyses for major secondary outcomes 155
Appendix 13 Results of secondary outcomes: scores 157
Appendix 14 Results of visual analogue scale bleeding scores sensitivity analysis:

without those prescribed levonorgestrel intrauterine system at the time
of operation 159
Appendix 15 Results of operation acceptability 161
xii
Appendix 16 Range of procedures and equipment used within the Outpatient

versus inpatient Polyp Treatment Trial 163
Appendix 17 Local anaesthetic use in outpatient polypectomy 167
Appendix 18 General anaesthesia (drug costs) 169
Appendix 19 General anaesthesia (equipment plus staff costs) 171
Appendix 20 Equipment costs for polypectomy 173
Appendix 21 Outpatient polypectomy cost (bottom-up costing) 175
Appendix 22 Inpatient polypectomy cost (bottom-up costing) 177
Appendix 23 Cost incurred (per-protocol analysis) 179
Appendix 24 Outcome data per protocol (complete data set analysis) 181
Appendix 25 Cost-effectiveness and cost–utility analyses: per protocol 183
Appendix 26 Deterministic sensitivity analyses: per protocol 185
Appendix 27 Probabilistic sensitivity analysis: patient treatment compared with

inpatient treatment – per-protocol analysis at 6 months 187
Appendix 28 Probabilistic sensitivity analysis: outpatient treatment compared

with inpatient treatment – per-protocol analysis at 12 months 189
Appendix 29 Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve: outpatient treatment

compared with inpatient treatment – per-protocol analysis 191
Appendix 30 Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment Trial collaborators 193
xiii
SO16 7NS, UK.
List of tables
TABLE 1 Patterns of AUB 3
TABLE 2 Methodology of the included studies 10
TABLE 3 Operative details of included studies 12
TABLE 4 Treatment outcomes of included studies 14
TABLE 5 Baseline patient characteristics 21
TABLE 6 Bleeding response success 21
TABLE 7 Visual analogue scores for bleeding (lower score = better) 22
TABLE 8 Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Assessment Scale scores

(higher score = better) 22
TABLE 9 EuroQol EQ-5D and health thermometer scores (higher score = better) 22
TABLE 10 Sexual satisfaction scores (lower score = better) 22
TABLE 11 Recruitment by centre 35
TABLE 12 Baseline characteristics 39
TABLE 13 Operative details 40
TABLE 14 Operative and postoperative complications including further

treatments/procedures given 41
TABLE 15 Primary outcome: treatment success 43
TABLE 16 Results of subgroup interaction tests (p-values shown) 43
TABLE 17 Likert response 45
TABLE 18 Results of secondary outcome measure: scores 46
TABLE 19 Operation acceptability: patient responses 49
TABLE 20 Currently taking any additional medical treatments for bleeding

symptoms in the last month 49
TABLE 21 Currently taking any additional medical treatments for bleeding

symptoms in the last month: details 50
TABLE 22 Gynaecological surgery over the full period of follow-up (not polyp
removal) 51
xv
SO16 7NS, UK.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 23 Health service resource use and time off work in the last 6 months 52
TABLE 24 Recruitment by centre 58
TABLE 25 Baseline characteristics 61
TABLE 26 Operative details 62
TABLE 27 Operative and postoperative complications including further

treatments/procedures given 63
TABLE 28 Likert response 64
TABLE 29 Results of secondary outcome measure: scores 65
TABLE 30 Operation acceptability: patient responses 66
TABLE 31 Currently taking any additional medical treatments for AUB in the last
month: details 67
TABLE 32 Gynaecological surgery over the full period of follow-up

(not polyp removal) 67
TABLE 33 Health service resource use and time off work in the last 6 months 68
TABLE 34 Admission and procedure costs 72
TABLE 35 Outpatient polypectomy cost 72
TABLE 36 Inpatient polypectomy cost 73
TABLE 37 Costs incurred: ITT analysis (complete data set analysis) 75
TABLE 38 Outcome data for ITT (complete data set analysis) 75
TABLE 39 Cost-effectiveness and CUA (full data set after multiple imputation): ITT 76
TABLE 40 Estimation of out-of-pocket costs 77
TABLE 41 Deterministic sensitivity analyses: ITT 79
TABLE 42 Qualitative study recruitment 84
xvi
List of figures
FIGURE 1 Study selection process 8
FIGURE 2 Quality of observational studies using the STROBE guidelines 9
FIGURE 3 Study quality of the RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 9
FIGURE 4 Pilot OPT Trial profile 20
FIGURE 5 Outpatient polyp treatment flow diagram 25
FIGURE 6 Outpatient polyp treatment pathways for outcome measures 30
FIGURE 7 Trial accrual 36
FIGURE 8 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram 37
FIGURE 9 Primary outcome: comparison with margin of non-inferiority 42
FIGURE 10 Primary outcome: by predominant bleeding complaint 43
FIGURE 11 Primary outcome: by site of uterine polyp 44
FIGURE 12 Primary outcome: by type of uterine polyp 44
FIGURE 13 Menorrhagia Multi-attribute Assessment Scale scores over time by

group (95% CI for mean shown at each time point; higher = better) 47
FIGURE 14 EuroQol EQ-5D scores over time by group (95% CI for mean shown
at each time point; higher = better) 47
FIGURE 15 EuroQol health thermometer scores over time by group

(95% CI for mean shown at each time point; higher = better) 47
FIGURE 16 Visual analogue scale bleeding duration scores over time by group
(95% CI for mean shown at each time point; lower = better) 48
FIGURE 17 Visual analogue scale bleeding amount scores over time by group
(95% CI for mean shown at each time point; lower = better) 48
FIGURE 18 Accrual to preference study 59
FIGURE 19 Allocated treatment according to randomisation and preference 59
FIGURE 20 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram for

preference study 60
FIGURE 21 Probabilistic sensitivity analysis: outpatient vs. inpatient treatment –

ITT analysis at 6 months 80
xvii
SO16 7NS, UK.
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 22 Probabilistic sensitivity analysis: outpatient vs. inpatient treatment –

ITT analysis at 12 months 80
FIGURE 23 Cost effectiveness acceptability curve outpatient vs. inpatient

treatment: ITT analysis 81
xviii
List of abbreviations
AA Automobile Association HTA Health Technology Assessment

AAGL American Association of ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
Gynecologic Laparoscopists
IMB intermenstrual bleeding
AUB abnormal uterine bleeding
IQR interquartile range
CEA cost-effectiveness analysis
ISS Index of Sexual Satisfaction
CEAC cost-effectiveness acceptability
ITT intention to treat
curve
LNG-IUS levonorgestrel intrauterine system
CHEERS Consolidated Health Economic
Evaluation Reporting Standards LREC Local Research Ethics Committee
CI confidence interval MCMC Markov chain Monte Carlo
CONSORT Consolidated Standards of MeSH medical subject heading

Reporting Trials
MMAS Menorrhagia Multi-attribute
CUA cost–utility analysis Assessment Scale
D&C dilatation and curettage MRC Medical Research Council
DMEC Data Monitoring and Ethics MREC Multicentre Research Ethics

Committee Committee
DSA deterministic sensitivity analysis NICE National Institute for Health and
Care Excellence
EH endometrial hyperplasia
NNTB number needed to benefit
EQ-5D European Quality of Life-5
Dimensions NNTH number needed to harm
EQ-5D-3L European Quality of Life-5 ONS Office for National Statistics

Dimensions (three-level version) OPH outpatient hysteroscopy
FIGO International Federation of
OPT outpatient polyp treatment
Gynecology and Obstetrics
OR odds ratio
GnRH-a gonadatrophin-releasing hormone
agonist PBAC pictorial blood assessment chart
GP general practitioner PMB postmenopausal bleeding
HCHS Health and Community Health PP per protocol

Services PSA probabilistic sensitivity analysis
HMB heavy menstrual bleeding (formerly PSSRU Personal Social Services Resource
known as menorrhagia) Unit
HR hazard ratio QALY quality-adjusted life-year
HRQL health-related quality of life R&D research and development
HRT hormone replacement therapy RCT randomised controlled trial
xix
SO16 7NS, UK.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
RE related event TMG Trial Management Group

RR relative risk TSC Trial Steering Committee
SAE serious adverse event TVS transvaginal ultrasound scan
SIS saline infusion sonography/scan VAS visual analogue scale
SMF submucous fibroid WTP willingness to pay
STROBE STrengthening the Reporting of
OBservational studies in
Epidemiology
xx
Plain English summary

A bnormal vaginal bleeding is common, occurs in women of all ages, and is found in association with
‘polyps’, which are localised, overgrown areas of the endometrium (womb lining) which protrude
inside the uterus (womb). Removal of polyps or ‘polypectomy’ involves placing surgical instruments into the
uterus via the vagina. This procedure is usually performed under general anaesthetic in hospital. However,
advances in technology have made it possible to perform polypectomy in a conscious patient in an outpatient
setting. We do not know if this approach is as effective as traditional inpatient management and how
acceptable it is to women. Convenience and cost-savings to the UK NHS are potential advantages of
outpatient polypectomy, and so even if this approach was marginally less effective it may still represent an
attractive option to women and health services. We therefore conducted a randomised controlled trial with
a parallel patient preference study to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of
outpatient polypectomy compared with conventional inpatient polypectomy.
The trial showed that outpatient polypectomy alleviated bleeding symptoms in 73% of women at 6 months
and was no worse than inpatient polypectomy at 6, 12 and 24 months. However, when choosing a
treatment setting, women need to be aware that for every nine outpatient polypectomies performed an
additional one procedure will fail compared with inpatient treatment. In addition, polypectomy in the
outpatient setting is less acceptable compared with the inpatient setting. Outpatient polypectomy was found
to be cost-effective compared with inpatient polypectomy.
xxi
SO16 7NS, UK.
Scientific summary
Background
Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) affects women of all ages and is the commonest reason for referral to
secondary care. Uterine polyps are focal outgrowths of the endometrium and are frequently found in
association with AUB. The available evidence supports the current practice of surgically removing uterine
polyps to help alleviate bleeding symptoms. Conventional practice is to undertake this simple procedure
under general anaesthesia in hospital. However, with advances in endoscopic technology, it is now
possible to perform uterine polypectomy in an outpatient setting without the need for hospital admission
and anaesthesia. Furthermore, treatment can be carried out at the same time as diagnosis; the ‘see and
treat’ approach. The convenience and immediacy of outpatient treatment may appear advantageous over
traditional practice. However, the limitations of operating in the genital tract using miniature equipment in
a conscious patient may offset any apparent benefits. Thus, there is an urgent need for a robust health
technology assessment of outpatient polyp treatment (OPT) to evaluate its effectiveness, cost-effectiveness
and acceptability compared with traditional inpatient surgical treatment.
Objectives
In undertaking the Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) Trial, we aimed to:
1. test the hypothesis that in women with AUB associated with benign uterine polyp(s), OPT achieved as
good, or no more than 25% worse (in relative terms), alleviation of bleeding symptoms at 6 months
compared with standard inpatient treatment (principal objective)
2. test the hypothesis that response to uterine polyp treatment differed according to the pattern of AUB
and menopausal status by three secondary analyses:
i. premenopausal women compared with postmenopausal women

ii. intermenstrual bleeding compared with excessive menstruation
iii. postmenopausal women on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) compared with those not on HRT
3. explore the variation in the effectiveness of OPT compared with standard inpatient polyp treatment at
different periods of follow-up (12 and 24 months)
4. assess patient acceptability and impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL)
5. explore the relative cost-effectiveness of inpatient polypectomy compared with outpatient polypectomy.
Methods
Randomised controlled trial and patient preference study

A multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) was undertaken, supplemented by a parallel patient
preference study. Five-hundred and seven women with AUB and hysteroscopically diagnosed uterine
polyps were randomised to outpatient or inpatient polypectomy. A further 399 women willing to
participate in the OPT study, but expressing a strong treatment preference, were recruited into the patient
preference study. The primary outcome was a successful treatment at 6 months, determined by the
woman’s assessment of her bleeding. The prespecified non-inferiority margin for the primary outcome
was 25%. Secondary outcomes included generic [European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)] and
disease-specific (Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale) quality-of-life measures, bleeding response on a Likert
scale, visual analogue scale (VAS) bleeding scores, procedure acceptability and surgical re-intervention/
xxiii
SO16 7NS, UK.
SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY
failure rates. Longer-term clinical outcomes were assessed at 12 and 24 months in the randomised trial.
Primary analyses were by intention-to-treat (ITT) but per-protocol (PP) sensitivity analyses were also conducted
for the primary outcome; further sensitivity analyses were also carried out to test the robustness of the results
with respect to missing responses and re-interventions. Analyses was performed on predefined subgroups
(type of bleeding, location and type of polyp) to examine if there was any evidence of a differential treatment
effect. Point estimates [relative risks (RRs), mean differences] and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were
produced for all main outcomes.
Economic analysis
An economic evaluation was carried out, which included both a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and
cost–utility analysis (CUA). The CEA was based on the patient-reported outcomes, and reported in terms of
cost per successful treatment. The CUA was carried out based on an outcome of quality of life estimated
from the EQ-5D (3L) questionnaire and reported in terms of additional cost per quality-adjusted life-year
(QALY) gained. The costs and outcome measures incorporated into the economic analysis were collected
prospectively during the OPT Trial. Costs were estimated using published standard sources of costs for
UK NHS procedures (NHS reference costs 2011–12 and Personal Social Services Resource Unit 2012).
Bottom-up costing was also undertaken and used in a sensitivity analysis. The robustness of the base-case
results to plausible variations during the uptake of these procedures in routine NHS use was explored using
a range of one-way deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSAs). In addition, probabilistic sensitivity analysis
(PSA) was carried for the base case to enable the simultaneous exploration of the uncertainties in the cost
and outcome data. The results of these analyses were presented in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness
ratios (ICERs) at 6 and 12 months, reflecting the additional cost per additional outcome of interest of
outpatient treatment compared with inpatient treatment. The analysis took the perspective of the NHS,
but a wider societal perspective was also explored, as far as possible using the patient self-reported
out-of-pocket costs.
Acceptability study
A patient acceptability study was undertaken using a phenomenological approach. This qualitative study
was undertaken in order to aid interpretation and understanding of the questionnaire data on acceptability
of the procedure, and to gain insight into women’s experiences of undergoing outpatient and inpatient
treatment. A series of semistructured interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of RCT and
preference patients to explore the ways in which women make sense of their experience and to elicit their
motivations for participation in the RCT.
Results
Randomised controlled trial and patient preference study

At 6 months, 73% (166/228) of women who underwent outpatient polypectomy were found to have
been successfully treated, compared with 80% (168/211) who had undergone inpatient polypectomy
(ITT RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02; PP RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02). The lower end of the CI showed
that outpatient polypectomy was at most 18% (RR 0.82) worse in relative terms than inpatient treatment
(same for both ITT and PP analyses), within the 25% margin of non-inferiority set at the outset of the
study. In absolute terms this translates to a risk difference of –0.07 (95% CI –0.16 to 0.03) and a lower
bound of the CI for number needed to harm (NNTH) of six with outpatient treatment (NNTH 15,
95% CI 6 to number needed to benefit 39). By 1 and 2 years, the corresponding proportions were very
similar between groups, producing RRs that were close to unity. There was no evidence that the treatment
effect differed according to any of the predefined subgroups when treatment by variable interaction
parameters were examined. There were no significant differences in quality of life or VAS scores.
Failure to completely remove polyps was higher in the outpatient treatment group than in the inpatient
treatment group (19% vs. 8% respectively; RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1). There was reduced acceptability in
the outpatient group (83% vs. 92%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97), although the number of women
xxiv
responding at least ‘fairly acceptable’ was 98% in both groups. Four uterine perforations occurred in the
inpatient treatment group.
In the patient preference study, 81% of women expressed a preference for outpatient treatment.
Eighty two per cent of women reported a successful response to surgery at 6 months in both the
outpatient group and inpatient polypectomy group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12). As with the RCT,
no differences in quality-of-life or VAS scores were observed. The inpatient treatment setting was
associated with increased acceptability, although overall acceptability (at least ‘fairly acceptable’) was 98%
for outpatient treatment. Lower rates of procedure failure were seen compared with the RCT groups
[odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.99] but no differences between groups were seen.
Economic analysis
For the base-case analysis, the point estimates of the mean costs incurred at 6 months on the outpatient
and inpatient treatment groups were £822 and £1482, respectively, with a cost difference of £660. The
proportion of patients who reported improvement in symptoms following polypectomy were 0.74 and
0.81 at 6 months for outpatient and inpatient treatment groups, respectively. The point estimates for
mean QALY levels in the inpatient and the outpatient groups at 6 months were equal at 0.41. In the ITT
analysis at 6 months, it cost an extra £9421 per patient successfully treated with inpatient treatment
compared with outpatient treatment. The additional cost per QALY was £1,099,167 per additional QALY
gained in the inpatient group. At 12 months, the corresponding costs were an extra £22,293 per
additional effectively treated inpatient and the additional cost per QALY was £668,800. Similar results
were obtained using the PP analysis, although outpatient treatment dominated inpatient treatment
(i.e. it was less expensive while being more effective) at 12 months.
Inpatient polypectomy remained more expensive than outpatient treatment in all of the scenarios
considered, and the ICERs were similar in DSA to those obtained by the base-case analysis. PSA showed
that although inpatient treatment is more expensive than the outpatient treatment, there was uncertainty
around the difference in effectiveness, implying that the effectiveness of the two treatments was broadly
similar. Outpatient treatment was the preferred procedure at lower willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds;
only at WTP thresholds of ≥ £90,000 did the two alternatives have equal chance of being considered
cost-effective.
Acceptability study
Various factors were found to be influential to women when deciding whether to take part in the OPT
study. Altruistic reasons around helping other women were common in the RCT, whereas preference
patients had more individual reasons for choosing one treatment option over the other; most women
choosing outpatient treatment wanted it over and done with in one hospital visit. Women expressed
satisfaction with their treatment, whatever their preference for treatment. The main difference in
procedural experience was that outpatients reported some pain and embarrassment during the procedure,
whereas inpatients reported some level of fatigue from the general anaesthetic.
Conclusions
When treating women with AUB associated with uterine polyps, outpatient polypectomy was non-inferior
to inpatient polypectomy at 6 and 12 months and more cost-effective. However, patients need to be
aware that failure to remove a polyp is more likely with outpatient treatment and procedure acceptability
slightly lower.
We found outpatient surgical treatment of uterine polyps to be non-inferior to traditional inpatient

treatment under general anaesthesia for the successful alleviation of AUB when compared with our
prespecified margin of non-inferiority of 25%. The removal of these focal pathologies was associated with
symptomatic control in three-quarters of women at 6 months, and treatment outcomes were maintained
xxv
SO16 7NS, UK.
SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY
at 12 and 24 months. There was no evidence that the treatment effect differed depending on whether the
presenting complaint was heavy, intermenstrual or postmenopausal bleeding, neither was it affected by
the location or type of polyp. A significant improvement in generic and disease-specific HRQL was seen
following polypectomy in both treatment groups at 6, 12 and 24 months, with no differences observed
according to treatment setting. Although outpatient polypectomy was successfully completed in four out
of five women, the odds of failure to complete polyp removal were two and a half times more likely in the
conscious patient than with traditional inpatient treatment.
Outpatient polyp treatment was less expensive than traditional inpatient treatment and similarly effective,
resulting in slightly lower self-reported effectiveness and QALY values at 6 and 12 months. The differences
in costs and outcomes between these procedures were fairly constant at these time points, suggesting that
the treatment has very few longer-term implications on health and resource use. The ICERs obtained by
cost-effectiveness and CUAs were very high, reflecting the equivalence in effectiveness between these
procedures. Sensitivity analyses clearly demonstrated that although outpatient therapy was definitely
cheaper than inpatient treatment, there was uncertainty around the effectiveness estimates implying the
effectiveness of the two alternatives was broadly similar. Thus, outpatient polypectomy appears to be more
cost-effective than current inpatient approaches to polypectomy at current acceptable WTP thresholds for
the NHS.
Rates of acceptability were high for both treatment groups, although acceptability with inpatient therapy
as measured on a Likert scale on the day of treatment was higher. When women were willing to take part
in the study but had a preference for treatment setting, > 80% chose to have the treatment awake as an
outpatient. Exploring acceptability and patient experience by semistructured interviews within 2 weeks of
treatment revealed that women expressed satisfaction with their treatment, whatever their preference
for inpatient or outpatient treatment. Women valued expeditious treatment and saw the immediacy and
convenience of ‘see and treat’ outpatient treatment as a proportionate response to resolving their
problem. Women considered the rapid discharge and return to normal activities associated with outpatient
treatment as an advantage.
Implications for health care
Outpatient polyp treatment is effective, acceptable and cost-effective. The current situation, for which
the majority of NHS providers of gynaecological services are unable to routinely offer women the
choice of outpatient surgical treatment for symptomatic uterine polyps, is unsustainable. Diagnostic
outpatient hysteroscopy facilities and practitioners are widely available within most NHS hospitals, so
that little additional infrastructure and training would be required to begin offering therapeutic services.
Contemporary health service development needs to take into account the views of patients; the demand
for the outpatient setting demonstrated in recruitment to the OPT preference study further support the
clinical and economic argument for change. In addition to developing modern diagnostic and therapeutic
‘ambulatory units’ within hospitals, providers should consider the possibility of setting up or expanding
community-based services, which may be more convenient to service users and potentially more
cost-effective.
The results of this research should inform the consenting process so that contemporary written material
and counselling is succinct, valid and relevant. This will enable patients to acquire realistic expectations
of the likely outpatient treatment experience, especially regarding pain, acceptability and treatment failure.
The provision of timely written and verbal information is therefore of prime importance to allow women
to make informed choices regarding treatment setting, especially where ‘see and treat’ approaches to
diagnosis and treatment are to be offered.
xxvi
Recommendations for future research (numbered in priority order)
1. Within gynaecological practice and other surgical disciplines, technology and patient expectations
will drive the development of convenient and rapid outpatient interventions to resolve commonly
encountered conditions that currently necessitate traditional inpatient surgery. Further RCTs, similar
to the OPT Trial, should be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of
such practices.
2. RCTs comparing uterine polypectomy compared with (1) medical management (e.g. the levonorgestrel
intrauterine system) and (2) expectant management may be warranted, subject to preliminary feasibility
studies, for the treatment of abnormal bleeding (stratified by bleeding pattern). Similar trials should be
considered in subfertility.
3. RCTs should be conducted to delineate the optimal surgical approach and identify the best
technologies in terms of feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness to treat common uterine pathologies,
such as uterine polyps, in an outpatient setting.
4. RCTs designed to evaluate approaches to minimising pain and enhancing both recovery and
acceptability of outpatient, ambulatory interventions. Environmental and procedural interventions, such
as local anaesthetic, analgesic and sedative regimens, and variations in surgical technique, should
be conducted.
5. Studies are needed to identify clinical factors, for example patient characteristics, anatomic, surgical and
pathological indicators that are predictive of poor patient experience and adverse outcomes, including
complications, with outpatient surgery. A prospective, centralised database of outpatient surgical
procedures in gynaecology should be considered.
Trial registration
This trial is registered as ISRCTN65868569.
Funding
Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National
Institute for Health Research.
xxvii
SO16 7NS, UK.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Background
Definition of a uterine polyp

Uterine polyps are focal endometrial outgrowths that can occur anywhere within the uterine cavity.
They contain a variable amount of glands, stroma and blood vessels, the relative amounts of which
influence their visual appearance at hysteroscopy. Polyps may be soft and cystic or firm and fibrous; they
may be pedunculated or sessile, single or multiple, and vary in size from small – with minimal uterine
cavity distortion – to large, filling the whole cavity.
Aetiology of uterine polyps

Uterine polyps are composed of either functional and/or basal endometrium. They are typically a mixture of
dense fibrous tissue (stroma), large and thick-walled vascular channels, and elongated glandular spaces
of varying shapes1,2 which protrude into the uterine cavity. The underlying cause of uterine polyp
formation remains unclear but is believed to be multifactorial.3 They are thought to originate as focal
areas of stromal and glandular overgrowth. This hyperplasia of the endometrium may occur within an area
of mucosa that contains more hormonal receptors, thus making it more sensitive to oestrogenic
stimulation.4,5 The mechanism of uterine polyp development may differ according to menopausal status.
In premenopausal women, a decrease in oestrogen and progesterone receptors within polyp stromal
cells, although not the glandular component, has been found, which may make polyps less sensitive to
cyclic hormonal changes.6–8 Others have pointed to increased cell longevity, as a result of inhibition of
apoptosis7,9 and biomarkers for altered gene expression have been documented within uterine polyps.10,11
Diagnosis of uterine polyps

For many years the traditional method of diagnosing endometrial polyps was dilatation of the cervix and
curettage of the endometrium [dilatation and curettage (D&C)]. However, this approach requires general
anaesthesia, is associated with morbidity arising from uterine trauma, and has been shown to have limited
diagnostic accuracy, because detecting and removing focal pathologies is notoriously problematic without
direct visualisation.12–15 The advent of convenient imaging of the uterine cavity using ultrasound or
endoscopic technologies has largely replaced the D&C for endometrial evaluation; 16 when histological
tissue samples are indicated, they can be obtained at the same time utilising blind, miniature outpatient
biopsy devices17,18 or, in the case of hysteroscopy, guided biopsy.19,20
Transvaginal ultrasound scan (TVS) is the least invasive outpatient test to evaluate the endometrium, as it
avoids potentially painful instrumentation of the uterine cavity; the ultrasound probe simply sits within the
top of the vagina. Uterine polyps typically appear as a hyperechoic lesion with or without cystic spaces,
usually with regular contours and surrounded by a thin hyperechoic halo, or the polyp may appear
as a non-specific endometrial thickening or focal mass within the endometrial cavity. TVS is often used as
the first-line test for evaluating bleeding complaints because of its convenience and acceptability.21
However, compared with saline infusion sonography (SIS), through which fluid is instilled to expand the
uterine lumen and delineate the walls of the uterine cavity, or outpatient hysteroscopy (OPH), which
directly visualises the inside of the uterus, TVS has poorer accuracy for diagnosing uterine polyps.22,23
This is primarily because the sonographic findings are not specific to polyps, and other endometrial
abnormalities – such as submucosal fibroids or endometrial irregularity – may have the same features,
with the findings often subtle and easily overlooked especially for smaller polyps.24 The development of
ancillary technologies such as three-dimensional imaging and the use of colour or power Doppler may in
time help improve the diagnostic accuracy of TVS for detecting focal pathologies within the uterus but
evidence to date is lacking.25,26
1
SO16 7NS, UK.
INTRODUCTION
The gold standard investigative tools for diagnosing uterine polyps are SIS or OPH. Both tests have good
accuracy for both detecting or excluding the presence of polyps within the uterus.22,27–29 Although SIS
is popular in some parts of Europe and North America, OPH is more widely practised in the UK and
worldwide. This is because the skills of hysteroscopy are more widely attained by practising gynaecologists
and it is safely practised30,31 but also because OPH allows convenient simultaneous removal of polyp
(‘see and treat’),32 may be more cost-effective16 and appears to be preferred by women.33,34 In contrast
with OPH, SIS has the advantage of allowing assessment and visualisation of other pelvic structures, and
visualisation of potential myometrial and adnexal abnormalities.35
Prevalence and epidemiology of uterine polyps

The prevalence of uterine polyps in a general adult female population without abnormal uterine bleeding
(AUB) is generally estimated to be around 10%.32 Case series of asymptomatic women are generally
small and estimates of prevalence imprecise; after TVS, uterine polyps were detected incidentally in 12%
of premenopausal women36 and in 6–11% of infertile women without AUB.37,38 In asymptomatic
postmenopausal women, prevalences of 13%36 and 16%39 have been reported following investigation
with ultrasound and hysteroscopy, respectively. However, they are found with increasing frequency
in women undergoing investigation for problems with AUB (see Abnormal uterine bleeding and uterine
polyps). In addition to AUB, risk factors for uterine polyp development are thought to include obesity,
late menopause and the use of the partial oestrogen agonist tamoxifen.36,40–42 The role of hormone
replacement therapy (HRT) on polyp formation is unclear, with some studies supporting an association36,40
and others not.43,44
Clinical significance of uterine polyps
Once a uterine polyp has been diagnosed, the current clinical consensus is to remove it.45 The rationale
for this approach is based upon (1) a belief that uterine polyps are unlikely to spontaneously resolve;
(2) a desire to alleviate AUB symptoms or optimise fertility; and (3) a need to exclude serious
endometrial disease.32
Natural history
The natural history of endometrial polyps is not fully understood.46 A proportion of small polyps may
regress naturally without treatment, but the majority persist; in one series of 45- to 50-year-old
asymptomatic women, 27% of 31 polyps regressed spontaneously during a 1-year follow-up. Polyps that
regressed tended to be smaller,47 in keeping with an earlier case series.46
Oncogenesis
The pathogenesis and oncogenic potential of uterine polyps are unclear. However, the vast majority of
uterine polyps are benign, and endometrial cancer originating within the polyp is a rare occurrence.
Case series of varied populations report a cancer prevalence of approximately 0.5–3%.48–55 Asymptomatic
women are estimated to have a 4- to 10-fold reduced risk of malignancy compared with those women
with AUB.55,56 Outside of AUB, other risk factors for malignancy within uterine polyps appear to include
increasing age, postmenopausal status, obesity, diabetes53–55 and an increased polyp diameter.55,56 The use
of tamoxifen appears to increase the risk of atypical hyperplasia and malignancy within uterine polyps.41,57
Atypical endometrial hyperplasia (EH) is considered to be a premalignant condition58 and the prevalence
within polyps ranges between 1% and 3%.53–56 Non-atypical hyperplasia has been reported to be found in
up to 13% of polyps,53 but the oncogenic potential of this condition is generally low. A systematic review
of observational series evaluated the prevalence of premalignant and malignant disease within uterine
polyps. It reported malignant tissue changes within endometrial polyps in 0–12.9% of included studies,
and hyperplastic change in 0.2–23.8% of polyps. They found postmenopausal symptomatic women to
have the highest risk of premalignant and malignant tissue changes.59 A more recent review60 similarly
found symptomatic women with AUB bleeding to be at higher risk of premalignancy or malignancy within
2
a uterine polyp; they reported the prevalence of endometrial neoplasia within polyps in women with
symptomatic bleeding as 4.2% (195/4697) compared with 2.2% (85/3941) for those without bleeding
[relative risk (RR) 1.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 3.14]. Among symptomatic postmenopausal
women with endometrial polyps, 4.5% (88 of 1968) had a malignant polyp in comparison with 1.5%
(25/1654) of asymptomatic postmenopausal women (RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.45 to 7.80). The risk of premalignancy
or malignancy within a uterine polyp was higher in symptomatic postmenopausal women (5.4%, 214/3946)
compared with 1.7% (68/3997) in reproductive-aged women (RR 3.86, 95% CI 2.92 to 5.11).
Abnormal uterine bleeding

Abnormal uterine bleeding affects women of both reproductive (premenopausal women) and
postreproductive (postmenopausal women) age. AUB is one of the four most common reasons for
consulting a general practitioner (GP), and accounts for 70% of all referrals to hospital gynaecology
clinics,61 making this complaint one of the commonest problems in gynaecology. A large proportion of
health-care resources in both primary care and hospital settings are used up in managing this condition.62
In premenopausal women, AUB manifests itself primarily as heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), which has
been defined as ‘excessive menstrual blood loss which interferes with the woman’s physical, emotional,
social and material quality of life, and which can occur alone or in combination with other symptoms’.63
HMB affects one in five women of reproductive age, with 5% of women aged 30–49 years consulting
their GP each year because of the condition.64 The overall prevalence of HMB in England and Wales has
been estimated at 1.5 million women.65 Uterine bleeding may be unscheduled, however, occurring
outside of the expected time of the menstrual period. This irregular ‘breakthrough’ bleeding is known as
intermenstrual bleeding (IMB) and is also common; a recent survey within primary care found the 2-year
cumulative incidence of IMB to be 24% (95% CI 21% to 27%).66
Postmenopausal bleeding (PMB) is also a common clinical problem in both general practice and secondary
care (hospital settings). Women are most likely to present with PMB in the sixth decade of life, for which
consultation rates in primary care are 14.3 per 1000 of the population.67 PMB causes significant alarm and
anxiety to women, who recognise vaginal bleeding after their periods have ceased as abnormal. Rapid
referral to secondary care for investigation is indicated because between 5% and 10% of women with
PMB will have endometrial cancer.68 Postmenopausal women taking HRT may also develop problematic
genital tract bleeding. Women taking sequential HRT regimens may present with either heavy scheduled
bleeding or unscheduled, erratic bleeding, whereas women taking continuous, combined ‘no bleed’ HRT
preparations present with unexpected bleeding, which is, by definition, unscheduled and abnormal.
Similarly, women with breast cancer who are taking the partial oestrogen agonist tamoxifen may present
with unscheduled bleeding.69 Table 1 summarises the types of AUB.
TABLE 1 Patterns of AUB
Bleeding type Description
HMB Excessive cyclical menstrual bleeding; menses may be frequent, prolonged or irregular
IMB Intermittent or persistent episodes of bleeding that occur between normally timed menstrual periods;
the bleeding may be of a regular and predictable or random, following no particular pattern
PMB Any vaginal bleeding occurring after the menopause; in women taking exogenous hormones (HRT)
bleeding may be heavy and scheduled (sequential ‘bleed’ HRT regimens) or unscheduled (sequential or
continuous combined ‘no bleed’ preparations)
3
SO16 7NS, UK.
INTRODUCTION
Abnormal uterine bleeding and uterine polyps

The majority of women with symptomatic polyps present with AUB as described in the preceding section.
With the advent of high-resolution pelvic ultrasound and hysteroscopic diagnosis, it has become clear that
uterine polyps are highly prevalent during investigation of abnormal bleeding. The reported prevalence of
endometrial polyps in general is considered to be between 20% and 30%,43,70,71 the variation reflecting
the criteria used to define a polyp, the diagnostic test used, and the type of population studied.
Although the prevalence of uterine polyps may be increased after the menopause,36 polyps are found
commonly to affect both pre- and postmenopausal women across all age groups.46 In recognition of the
frequency in which uterine polyps are discovered in women of reproductive age, the International
Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) has recently accepted a new classification system for
causes of AUB in the reproductive years, based on the acronym ‘PALM-COEIN’ with the ‘P’ denoting a
‘polyp’, i.e. describing AUB associated with the presence of uterine polyps.72
The improved diagnostic accuracy, has led to the increased use of surgical intervention for the removal of
polyps (‘polypectomy’), a procedure that is universally practised to resolve symptoms and to obtain tissue
for histological examination.45
Treatment of uterine polyps
Until recently, inpatient blind uterine curettage (D&C) under general anaesthetic has been the technique
routinely used to perform uterine polypectomy. It involves wide dilatation of the cervix and the use of
standard surgical polypectomy forceps to explore the uterine cavity. This technique is still used today,
although most gynaecologists perform a hysteroscopy beforehand to locate the polyp to direct blind
avulsion of the lesion followed by curettage.45,73 Owing to the need for inpatient hospital admission and
general anaesthesia, this approach is associated with heavy use of health-care resources, with over 25,000
inpatient procedures being performed during 2011–12 in the UK, a figure that was up by 4000 on the
numbers from 1998 to 1999 confirming a trend towards an increase in the use of inpatient polypectomy
[Department of Health (England), Hospital Episode Statistics – 2011/1274].
Expectant management
The observation that polyps are an incidental finding in around 5–15% of women,36–39 the majority of
polyps are benign60,75 and some may naturally regress46,47 has led some to question whether removal
of uterine polyps is necessary,76 and indeed removal may subject women to unnecessary morbidity and
wastage of scarce health service resources. Two RCTs have addressed this issue, randomising women with
AUB and uterine polyps to expectant management or surgical removal.75,76 One trial76 failed to recruit
women with PMB because neither doctors nor patients were in equipoise and so were unwilling to
participate. This finding is consistent with postmenopausal women having a preference for hysteroscopic
diagnosis and treatment when an abnormality is found.73 The other RCT randomised 150 women with
uterine polyps, of which 60% had AUB symptoms. Overall, no reduction in periodic blood loss was
demonstrated at 6 months’ follow-up, but IMB symptoms were significantly improved.75 The findings from
this study are limited, given that it was restricted to premenopausal women, the sample size was small
(only 60% of the population included were symptomatic), the presenting complaints were heterogeneous
and the study length of follow-up was short.
Medical management
Medical management is widely adopted for the treatment of menstrual complaints and includes the
use of hormonal contraceptives. Although some of these women may have undiagnosed uterine polyps,
evidence for the use of medical therapy is lacking and not recommended.63 Gonadotrophin-releasing
hormone analogues (‘GnRH-a’s) have been used prior to hysteroscopic resection of focal pathologies in
premenopausal women77 but the costs and menopausal side effects are difficult to justify for the removal
of uterine polyps. This is because polyps are successfully removed in the majority of cases without the need
for adjunctive medical preparation, in contrast with submucous fibroids (SMFs). One small series evaluated
4
different HRT regimens to see whether some have a reduced propensity to polyp formation.78 The use of
levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in women taking tamoxifen has been reported to
reduce the incidence of endometrial polyps.79
Surgical management: polypectomy

A UK national survey45 and two subsequent Dutch surveys80,81 confirmed that the vast majority of
gynaecologists advocated surgical removal of polyps from the uterus after diagnosis with 854 of 918
(93%),45 455 of 553 (83%)80 and 411 of 585 (91%) respondents performing polypectomy.81 In the UK, the
predominant method for removal of uterine polyps was by blind avulsion or curettage, after hysteroscopic
location of the focal lesion under general anaesthesia,45 whereas in the Netherlands removal under direct
hysteroscopic vision under general or regional anaesthesia80,81 was the favoured approach.
Blind uterine polypectomy

Blind methods to retrieve focal intrauterine pathology included blind curettage of the endometrium or
avulsion with polyp forceps. These approaches can be associated with potential uterine trauma, which can
be unrecognised and lead to serious complications from intra-abdominal damage.12,13 Failure to remove
polyps and problems with incomplete removal are well recognised.13–15,82–84
Hysteroscopic uterine polypectomy

Advances in hysteroscopic technology have enabled polyps to be removed under direct vision. Fine
mechanical instruments, such a scissors, biopsy cups, forceps and snares can be used down a 5- or
7-French working channel of a rigid operative hysteroscope and the safety and feasibility of such
approaches have been reported.32,85–87 Potential drawbacks of mechanical instrumentation are the fragility
of the instruments, limited manipulation, difficulty with cutting or avulsing large and fibrous pathology,
and, in some instances, bleeding.32,88
The adoption of electrosurgical technologies may help to overcome these difficulties. Large-diameter
hysteroscopic resectoscopes that were developed originally to resect the endometrium for the treatment
of HMB89 can also be used to resect focal pathologies, such as SMFs77,90 or polyps.91,92 They have the
advantage of speed and manipulation, but the large diameter of the instruments necessitates general
anaesthesia, specialised skills are required93,94 and potential serious complications from fluid overload and
inadvertent electrosurgical injury can occur.95
In contrast with firm SMFs of myometrial origin, polyps are generally softer structures that are derived from
the underlying endometrium. Thus, it has been recognised that smaller, less-traumatic electrosurgical
instruments would suffice. A miniature bipolar electrosurgical system has been developed (Versapoint®,
Gynecare, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) to cut away polyps and the safety, acceptability and feasibility of
this approach has been reported.96–98 However, retrieval of the tissue specimen from the uterine cavity can
be problematic, and usually requires the additional use of mechanical instruments to effect.32 Other
technologies have been developed, including monopolar electrosurgical snares,86 and, more recently,
morcellation technologies (TRUCLEAR™, Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA, USA) and Myosure
(Hologic, Marlborough, MA, USA), which allow simultaneous tissue cutting and extraction.99,100
5
SO16 7NS, UK.
INTRODUCTION
Evidence for uterine polyp treatment in abnormal

uterine bleeding
In 2006, our group published a systematic review of the efficacy of uterine polypectomy for the treatment
of AUB.87 The review included nine case series (534 patients) and a single controlled observational study
comparing setting for the treatment of uterine polyps (58 patients). No randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
were identified, or any studies on patient acceptability or cost-effectiveness. A summary of the evidence is
given below:
l Technique Uterine polypectomy was carried out under general anaesthesia utilising hysteroscopic or
blind approaches in all studies, although local anaesthetic outpatient approaches were also used in
three of these series. The hysteroscopic techniques under general anaesthesia involved use of large-size
endoscopes that are associated with the need to perform wide cervical dilatation.
l Setting A single, non-randomised comparative study of 58 women undertaken at the Birmingham
Women’s Hospital97 showed that outpatient removal under local anaesthesia was no worse than
inpatient, general anaesthetic treatment [14/18 (78%) vs. 14/16 (88%); p = 0.7], a result that could
partly be explained by the possibility of type II error due to small sample size and lack of randomisation.
l Alleviation of AUB All studies reported an improvement in symptoms of AUB following treatment
(range 75–100%) at follow-up intervals of between 2 and 52 months.
l Influence of type of AUB It was possible to stratify treatment outcome according to type of abnormal
bleeding in only one small study of 45 women,101 which could not detect a difference between
polypectomy for menstrual dysfunction or PMB (p = 0.2), again partly due to small sample size.
In summary, the evidence from this systematic review suggested that uterine polypectomy was a safe and
technically successful procedure for the treatment of AUB.87 However, randomised effectiveness data
comparing treatment approaches or settings were non-existent, as were economic data to examine
cost-effectiveness and qualitative data of patient acceptability and preference.
Systematic Review performed during the Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp

Treatment Trial
For this report we have undertaken a systematic review of the effectiveness of uterine polypectomy,
building on our previously published systematic review,87 using updated methodological advances in search
strategies, quality assessment and statistical analysis.102,103 The objective of the review was to systematically
review the literature to evaluate the effectiveness of uterine polypectomy for the treatment of AUB.
Our secondary aims were to establish if the type of AUB, setting or technique influenced outcome.
Methods
Search strategy
We performed searches on the general bibliographic databases MEDLINE (1950–2013), EMBASE
(1980–2013) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1981–2013).
Based on published advice, our search term combination for electronic databases was medical subject
headings (MeSH) for polyps combined with word variants for endometrium (endometri* OR uter*) and
surgical polypectomy (surgery OR curettage OR hysteroscopy OR polypectomy). Furthermore, all of the
bibliographies of relevant studies were hand-searched to identify articles that were not captured by
the electronic searches.
6
Study selection
Two reviewers independently selected articles in a two-stage process. First, abstracts obtained by either the
electronic database searches or bibliography inspections were reviewed, and articles that could possibly
fulfil the following criteria were selected for full text review.
Inclusion criteria
l Population Women with intrauterine polyps and AUB.

l Intervention Uterine polypectomy.
l Outcome Relief of AUB symptoms.*
[*Measured in general terms, e.g. objective, semiobjective or subjective measures of change in AUB;
normalisation of bleeding patterns; satisfaction with AUB outcome; change in quality-of-life scores
from baseline.]
Once articles were selected both reviewers used specially designed data abstraction forms to collect data
on the main outcome measure that was relief of AUB symptoms. Secondary outcomes included technical
feasibility, complications and polyp histology. Differences in article and information selection were
solved by deliberation. Where a consensus could not be found a third reviewer (TJC) made the final
judgement. No language restrictions were applied and translation available where necessary.
The strength of agreement between reviewers taking into account the play of chance was computed using
kappa statistic (agreement is considered good if > 0.6 and very good if > 0.8).
Type of study included

All relevant randomised controlled studies were included. Owing to the small number of RCTs,
non-randomised studies including both prospective and retrospective observational studies were
also included.
Study quality assessment

The 2007 STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist was
used to assess the quality of the observational studies,104 whereas the Cochrane risk of bias tool checklist
was used to assess the quality of the randomised controlled studies.102 Two reviewers independently
scrutinised the articles against each element of the relevant checklist.
Synthesis of results
Originally, in the absence of heterogeneity, data pooling and meta-analysis was planned. However, owing
to a lack of controlled studies this could be performed for only inpatient treatment compared with
outpatient treatment. All other extracted data were tabulated to allow qualitative analysis.
Results
Results of search
From the electronic search we obtained 1122 citations and a further two from searching reference lists of
relevant articles. At this stage 1075 citations were excluded, based on a review of the abstracts and titles.
An attempt was made to retrieve the remaining 49 articles for further scrutiny. One article could not be
retrieved either online or via The British Library. Review of these articles showed that 32 did not meet the
selection criteria. The characteristics of the excluded articles105 are described in Figure 1. There was a
high level of agreement between reviewers for which articles should be retrieved for further scrutiny
(kappa agreement = 0.92; p ≤ 0.001).
7
SO16 7NS, UK.
INTRODUCTION
Identification
Records identified through Additional records identified
database searching (n = 1534) through other sources (n = 2)
Records after duplicates removed

(n = 1124)
Screening
Records screened (n = 1124)
Records excluded
(n = 1075)
Eligibility
Full-text articles
assessed for
eligibility (n = 49) Full-text articles excluded, with
reasons (n = 32)
• No symptom outcome, n = 22
• Duplicates, n = 4
• Polypectomy not the intervention, n = 4
• Unrecruited trial, n = 1
Studies included in • Unobtainable, n = 1
Included
qualitative synthesis
(n = 17)
FIGURE 1 Study selection process.
Included studies
The 17 studies23,75,91,97,101,105–114 (including TJ Clark, Birmingham Women’s Hospital, 2013, unpublished) that
met our inclusion criteria enrolled a total of 1829 patients between 1989 and 2009. The population size
ranged from 8 to 311, with only five studies having a population size of > 100.12,16,21,22,29
Study quality and design

There were two randomised controlled studies: one comparing inpatient treatment with outpatient
treatment (TJ Clark, unpublished), whereas the second compared polyp removal with observation for
6 months.75 Of the remaining 15 observational studies, only two were controlled: one compared inpatient
treatment with outpatient treatment97 and the second compared hysteroscopic morcellation to electrical
resection.105 The remaining 13 articles were uncontrolled observational studies. Only six of the studies
were prospective, although the majority of the studies23,75,97,113,114 (plus TJ Clark, unpublished) collected the
data consecutively (Figures 2 and 3; Table 2).
Participant characteristics
One study looked exclusively at women suffering from PMB,113 seven studies looked at only women who
were premenopausal23,75,106,107,109,111,112 and the remaining nine studies91,97,101,105,108,110,114,115 (plus TJ Clark,
unpublished) examined mixed populations of women with AUB.
8
Title and abstract appropriate

Introduction states background and objectives
Study design – key elements presented early in the paper
Describe setting and recruitment period
Elegibility and follow-up
Defines all variables
Data sources and methods of assessment
Efforts to address bias
Explanation of study size
Explanation of how quantitative variables analysed Yes
Describes all statistical methods No
Reports number of individuals at each stage of the study
Participant characteristics and follow-up time
Reports number of outcome events
Reports all results and precision
Summarises key results
Limitations of study
Interpretation of results
Generalisability
Source of funding
0 5 10 15
Number of studies
FIGURE 2 Quality of observational studies using the STROBE guidelines.104
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Blinding of outcome assessment

Low
High
Blinding of participants and personnel
Allocation concealment
Random sequence generation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Per cent (%)
FIGURE 3 Study quality of the RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.102
9
SO16 7NS, UK.
10
TABLE 2 Methodology of the included studies
Population: polyps and AUB

Methodology, Data Patient
Study author study design collection Selection No. Type (%) Follow-up (%)
INTRODUCTION
Clark TJ, RCT Prospective Consecutive 60 Unspecified menstrual; PMB 80

unpublished
Lieng et al.75 RCT Prospective Consecutive 150 Intermenstrual (47); menorrhagia (13); irregular (8); discharge (7); 95
asymptomatic (25)
AlHilli et al.105 Controlled Retrospective Consecutive 311 Menorrhagia (19.3%), menometrorrhagia (10.6%), PMB (44.4%) 100
observational (IUM 139,
HSR 172)

Barisic et al.106 Observational Unreported Unreported 8 Unspecified menstrual 100
107
Brooks et al. Observational Unreported Unreported 9 Excessive menstrual 89
Clark et al.97 Controlled Prospective Consecutive 58 Unspecified menstrual (10); PMB ± HRT (90) 58
observational
Cravello et al.108 Observational Retrospective Consecutive 195 Unspecified menstrual (60); PMB + HRT (12); tamoxifen (2); PMB (26) 89
Henriquez et al.109 Observational Retrospective Consecutive 56 Unspecified 100

101
Nagele et al. Observational Unreported Unreported 33 Excessive menstrual (47); IMB (13); PMB 40 100
110
Pace et al. Observational Unreported Consecutive 87 Unspecified menstrual/PMB (86); subfertility (14) 87; 49
111
Polena et al. Observational Retrospective Consecutive 367 Menorrhagia, metrorrhagia, IMB 83
Preutthipan et al.91 Observational Retrospective Unreported 155 Metrorrhagia (31), hypermenorrhea (29), IMB (19), menorrhagia (11) 100
and menometrorrhagia (10)
Stamatellos et al.112 Observational Retrospective Unreported 83 Unspecified 100
Timmermans Observational Prospective Consecutive 49 PMB 100

et al.113
Towbin et al.114 Observational Prospective Consecutive 14 Menorrhagia, metrorrhagia; postmenopausal 100
Tjarks et al.115 Observational Retrospective Unreported 34 Unspecified menstrual (64); PMB (36) 100
Van Dongen Observational Prospective Consecutive 21 Menorrhagia, metrorrhagia, IMB 90

et al.23
Interventions
When the operative technique was described, polypectomy was performed under direct vision
(hysteroscopically) with the exception of two studies (Clark et al.97 and TJ Clark, unpublished) that had
inpatient arms in which blind avulsion was used.97 There were a variety of techniques described for polyp
removal under direct vision including: scissors, polyp forceps, morcellator devices and a variety of bipolar
instruments (Table 3).
Outcomes
There were large differences in the time of follow-up, ranging from 2 months110 to > 9 years91 (Table 4).
Only two studies23,97 used a validated tool for measuring efficacy of polypectomy: both studies used a
visual analogue scale (VAS).23,97 The majority of studies defined the primary outcome as an improvement
in symptoms of AUB as perceived by the patient. All of the studies23,75,91,97,101,105–115 (plus TJ Clark,
unpublished) reported an improvement in symptoms from 60% to 100%. The study looking exclusively at
postmenopausal patients presented a survival analysis curve.113 The seven studies23,75,106,107,109,111,112 looking
at premenopausal patients reported improvements in 60–100% of participants. The remaining nine
studies91,97,101,105,108,110,114,115 (plus TJ Clark, unpublished) looking at mixed populations reported 65–100%
symptomatic improvements. Two of these studies broke down recurrent AUB symptoms for those that
were pre- and postmenopausal at treatment.101,105 One of the studies101 found no significant difference
in AUB at 1 year, although the numbers were small (27/34 premenopausal patients vs. 12/12
postmenopausal patients; p = 0.2). Although a larger study105 found that premenopausal women were
more likely to have recurrence of symptoms [hazard ratio (HR) 2.42, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.11]. Another
study109 broke down symptom outcome by types of AUB in premenopausal women; no differences in
outcome were observed for those women complaining of HMB or IMB, although the study population was
small (HR 1.29, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.73 and HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.76, respectively).
The two studies (Clark et al.97 plus TJ Clark, unpublished) comparing inpatient to outpatient treatment
reported no difference in symptom improvement, although the study sizes were small: 11 of 12 (92%)
after outpatient treatment compared with 13 of 14 (93%) after inpatient treatment,97 and 18 of 22
(82%) after outpatient treatment compared with 17 of 26 (65%) after inpatient uterine polypectomy
(RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.83). In both studies the outpatient polypectomies were performed under direct
vision, whereas inpatient polypectomy was performed ‘blindly’.
There was one other controlled observational study105 and that compared mechanical polyp resection (using
a morcellator) compared with electrical resection. Overall, 36 of 172 patients (21%) undergoing electrical
resection and 21 of 139 patients (15%) undergoing intrauterine morcellation (IUM) reported recurrence
of AUB.
The randomised controlled study comparing resection of polyps with observation for 6 months reported
no difference in periodic blood loss using the pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC) but did report a
significant decrease in recurrence of gynaecological symptoms (e.g. IMB and vaginal discharge) in those
women having polypectomy [7/75 patients (9.3%) vs. 28/75 control patients (37.3%); p < 0.001].75
11
SO16 7NS, UK.
12
TABLE 3 Operative details of included studies
Polyps
INTRODUCTION
Study author Technique (%) Anaesthesia (%) Mean operation time No. (%) Mean size (range) Histology (%)
Clark TJ, Outpatient = hysteroscopic; Outpatient = local (93), Outpatient (consultation time) NR NR NR
unpublished inpatient = blind none (7); 29 minutes; inpatient 24 minutes
inpatient = general (100)
Lieng et al.75 HSR or observation General NR NR 16.5 mm (SD 5.3) EH (1.5); benign
(98.5)
AlHilli et al.105 HSR General NR Single (65); 2.1 cm EH + ECA (7)

multiple (35)
Barisic et al.106 HSR General NR Single (100) (1.8–3 cm) EH (13); benign
(87)
Brooks et al.107 HSR General NR NR NR NR

97
Clark et al. Hysteroscopic (Versapoint) Local (50); general (50) NR NR 0.9 cm NR
(50); or hysteroscopy +
blind avulsion (50)
Cravello et al.108 HSR General 19 minutes Single (90); 1.4 cm (0.5–4 cm) EH + A (1); benign
multiple (10) (99)
Henriquez Hysteroscopic General or spinal NR Single (62); 17.5 mm (SD 8.3) NR

et al.109 multiple (39)
Nagele et al.101 HSR or mechanical excision Local (20); general (80%) NR Single; ‘some’ (1–5 cm) EH + A (2); ECA
(scissors) multiple (2); benign (96)
Pace et al.110 HSR General 22 minutes Single (86); [< 1.5 cm (45%); EH (1); benign
multiple (14) > 1.5 cm (55%)] (99)
Polena et al.111 HSR General NR Single (81); NR ECA (0.05);
multiple (19) benign (99.5)
Preutthipan HSR General 23.1 ± 4.7 minutes, micro scissors; Single (74) 3.4 ± 0.9 cm EH (3); benign
et al.91 20.9 ± 3.9 minutes, grasping forceps; premenopausal; (97)
25.2 ± 4.9 minutes, electric probe; 2.5 ± 0.8 cm
31.9 ± 8.3 minutes postmenopausal
Histology (%)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
< 1 cm [41]; > 1 cm [59]
[< 1 cm (13%); > 1 cm

Mean size (range)
13.2 mm (SD 4.7)
ECA, endometrial cancer; EH + A, endometrial hyperplasia plus cytological atypia; HSR, hysteroscopic resection; NR, not recorded; SD, standard deviation.
(87%)]
NR
NR
multiple (61.9)
same as polyp
Single (38.1);
multiple (59)
multiple (12)
Single (41);
Single (88);
size data
No. (%)
Polyps
NR
NR
Mean operation time
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Anaesthesia (%)
General or spinal
General or none
General
NR
NR
Technique (%)
HSR
HSR
NR
NR
NR
Towbin et al.114
Study author
115
Timmermans
Van Dongen
Tjarks et al.
Stamatellos
et al.112
et al.113
et al.23
13
SO16 7NS, UK.
INTRODUCTION
TABLE 4 Treatment outcomes of included studies
Failure
rate/complication Outcome
Study author rate assessment (time) Outcome measure Treatment success (%)
Clark TJ, Outpatient 2/1; Postal questionnaire Improvement in VAS Outpatient 18/22 (82);
unpublished inpatient 0/0 (6 months) 17/26 (65) inpatient
Lieng et al.75 0/1 Postal questionnaire No 68/75 (91) resection; 47/75

(6 months) gynaecological (63) observation
symptom
AlHilli et al.105 NR Clinical interview Recurrence of AUB 118/139 (85) IUM; 136/172
(79) HSR; 254/311 (81) both
Barisic et al.106 NR/NR NR (first three Normalisation of AUB 8/8 (100)

menstrual cycles)
Brooks et al.107 NR/0 NR (> 3 months) Improved vs. 7/8 (88)
not improved
Clark et al.97 0/0 Postal questionnaire Better vs. not better; Outpatient 11/12 (92);
at 6 months satisfied vs. inpatient: 13/14 (93);
not satisfied outpatient: 14/18 (78);
inpatient: 14/16 (88),
156/175 (89)
Cravello et al.108 0/2 Telephone interview Normalisation of AUB 156/175 (89)

with patients or
referring
clinicians (NR)
Henriquez NR Review of Persistence of AUB 33/56 (60) 1 year

et al.109 clinical notes requiring medical
therapy or surgical
intervention
Nagele et al.101 0/0 Clinical interview Short-term ‘cure’ of 44/49 (90); 38/49 (78)
(3 months); postal AUB; maintenance of
questionnaire ‘cure’ (no recurrence
(5–52 months) of AUB)
Pace et al.110 0/1 Clinical interview Normalisation of AUB 85/87 (98);100

(2 months); clinical (no ‘relapse’ of
interview (12 months) symptoms)
Polena et al.111 1/4 (out of total Telephone interview Normalisation of AUB 91/97 (94)
population of 367) and postal
questionnaire
Preutthipan NR/21 Clinical interview Normalisation of AUB 144/155 (93)
et al.91 9 years 2 months
Stamatellos NR/2 Telephone interview Normalisation of AUB 76/83 (91)

et al.112 or examination when
indicated
(3–18 months)
Timmermans NR/NR Patients self-reported Recurrence of PMB Survival curve

et al.113 symptoms
Towbin et al.114 NR Clinical interview Recurrence of AUB 14/14 (100)
Tjarks et al.115 NR/NR Telephone interview Menorrhagia score Significant reduction

(5–24 months) (scale 0–3); no. of days p < 0.05; significant
bleeding/month; reduction p < 0.05;
satisfied vs. not satisfied 23/26 (88)
Van Dongen NR/NR Questionnaire Improvement of 18/21 (86); improvement

et al.23 symptoms; menstrual p < 0.001; improvement
chart score; VAS p < 0.001
quality of life
HSR, hysteroscopic resection; IUM, intrauterine morcellation; NR, not recorded.
14
Discussion
The evidence collated in this review supports the notion that removing uterine polyps is effective at
improving symptoms of AUB. However, most of the evidence was derived from observational studies that
reported high success rates, but, in general, the quality of the research was poor. The highest-quality
studies, the two RCTs (Lieng et al.75 and TJ Clark, unpublished) reported more modest improvements in
symptoms. However, it was unclear whether menopausal status or exact the nature of the presenting AUB
complaint influences treatment outcome.
The strengths of this review included the rigorous, systematic approach to literature searching;
independent selection of studies and data abstraction in duplicate, and use of recommended study quality
assessment tools.102,104 The included studies were small, however, and many contained heterogeneous
populations of women who were both pre- and postmenopausal. In addition, follow-up was often
incomplete and short term, such that the strength of any clinical inference possible to draw is limited.
Meta-analysis was precluded because of the observed heterogeneity within and between the study
populations, as well as variation in follow-up and outcome assessment.
The majority of studies reported hysteroscopic polyp resection under direct vision. However, although
hysteroscopic polypectomy is increasing in popularity, a large number of clinicians continue to use blind
techniques, such as D&C, affecting the generalisability of the results presented in this review.45,80,81
To better ascertain the effect of polyp removal on AUB we decided not to include data in which patients
had concomitant or subsequent medical or surgical treatments, for example insertion of the LNG-IUS,
which may also affect generalisability.
Larger randomised controlled studies are necessary to elucidate if certain groups of patients benefit more
from uterine polypectomy. However, recruitment may be hampered by the unwillingness of both
gynaecologists and patients to participate in placebo-controlled trials.76 A further consideration is the
increasing move to outpatient polypectomy observed in many units, driven by technological advances in
instrumentation, patient expectation and scarcity of health-care resources.32 Only two randomised studies
were identified in this review. Large RCTs comparing conventional inpatient with novel outpatient
approaches to polyp treatment are needed to identify best practice before opinion is solidified.
Current practice: surgical method and setting

Outpatient evaluation of the uterus for common gynaecological complaints is now commonplace and has
superseded traditional inpatient admission for D&C under general anaesthesia.21,116 Polyps are highly
prevalent and being increasingly identified within the uterus in women presenting with AUB, whether it
be HMB, IMB or PMB.66,70,117–119 Recent technological advances in endoscopy have resulted in improved
high-definition optical imaging and digital data capture. Moreover, hysteroscopy systems have become
miniaturised, such that they are increasingly portable and easy to insert into the uterine cavity without the
need for wide cervical dilatation and blind uterine exploration. Alongside these developments, miniature
ancillary instrumentation has been developed, allowing precise targeting of focal pathologies, such as
uterine polyps, using a variety of mechanical and electrosurgical equipment32,85–88,96–100 (see Surgical
management: polypectomy). These developments have facilitated the concept of ‘see and treat’
hysteroscopy in a convenient outpatient setting. The approach obviates the need for general anaesthesia.
Hysteroscopic intervention is not simply restricted to diagnosis, but when pathology amenable to treatment
is identified then simultaneous treatment is carried out.21,32,85,86,88
Despite these technological advances and the apparent safety, convenience and feasibility of outpatient
intervention, as well as the high prevalence of uterine polyps associated with AUB, outpatient surgical
removal of uterine polyps remains infrequently practised. As described above (see Surgical management:
polypectomy), surgical polyp removal is universally practised in the UK45 and elsewhere, although the most
prevalent technique differs between the UK and the Netherlands, two countries for which national surveys
of practice pertaining to polyp treatment have been conducted.45,80,81 In the UK the default method for
15
SO16 7NS, UK.
INTRODUCTION
removal of uterine polyps was by blind avulsion or curettage after hysteroscopic location of the focal lesion
under general anaesthesia,45 whereas in the Netherlands it was removal under direct hysteroscopic
vision under general or regional anaesthesia.80,81
In 2001 in the UK, removal of polyps under direct vision using hysteroscopic techniques was generally
restricted to those gynaecologists with an interest in endoscopic surgery, with such practice being more
common in members of endoscopic societies.45 Although outpatient removal of uterine polyps is possible
using blind curettage and/or avulsion, techniques developed for surgery under general anaesthesia, such
approaches are associated with increased uterine trauma and discomfort.12–15,32,82–84 Thus, to set up an
outpatient service, the ability to perform hysteroscopic polyp removal under direct vision is a prerequisite.
Furthermore, the concomitant removal of focal uterine lesions under direct vision may allow for more
complete removal and hence better symptomatic outcomes, in addition to the potential advantages to
women and their doctors in terms of increased efficiency, convenience and choice.
Notwithstanding the observed differences in hysteroscopic and blind polyp treatment between the UK and
the Netherlands, common to both countries was a propensity among gynaecologists to conduct uterine
polypectomy as an inpatient under general anaesthesia. In the UK survey, 19% of respondents performed
outpatient uterine polypectomy, but only half of these did so routinely.45 In the Netherlands, 27% of
respondents performed polypectomy in an outpatient setting, but those gynaecologists working in teaching
hospitals were twice as likely to undertake such procedures than their colleagues who were practising
within non-teaching institutions (39% vs. 19% respectively; p < 0.001).80 It seems, therefore, that
outpatient polypectomy is restricted to those gynaecologists, often working within teaching hospitals, with
specific interests or skills in endoscopy. Given the high disease burden associated with uterine polyps,74 the
ubiquity of polypectomy and the potential morbidity and resource use associated with inpatient surgery, this
difference in practice is unsustainable. It is possible that practice has changed since these surveys were
conducted a decade ago, but a subsequent follow-up Dutch survey published last year81 found no such
change, confirming again that the vast majority of gynaecologists advocating surgical removal of polyps
from the uterus did so using general anaesthesia. Those performing outpatient procedures were again
twice as likely to be based within teaching hospitals (43% vs. 19%, respectively; p < 0.001).81 Within the UK
it is also likely that practice is much as it was a decade ago, and this contention is supported by the small
proportion of UK centres approached to participate in the Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment
(OPT) Trial who were eligible; the main reason for ineligibility being an absence of a therapeutic OPH service
(TJ Clark, Birmingham Women’s Hospital, 2013, personal communication).
The reasons for variation in practice and persistence with inpatient surgical treatment under general
anaesthesia are likely to be multiple. The absence of an established outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy
service; no access to, or unfamiliarity with, equipment; lack of necessary surgical skills; and financial
considerations restricting the development of new services are likely to play their part to a varying degree.
As with any new health technologies, however, evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is
necessary once safety and feasibility of the intervention has been established. The lack of effectiveness and
cost-effectiveness data is likely to be a key factor driving the current status quo.
Need for a large simple trial of outpatient uterine polypectomy compared

with inpatient uterine polypectomy in abnormal uterine bleeding
Two systematic reviews59,87 (see Systematic review performed during the Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp
Treatment Trial) provide evidence which suggests that uterine polypectomy is a safe and technically
successful procedure for the treatment of AUB and results in an improvement in AUB symptoms. However,
the quality of existing research is poor, introducing a substantial potential for bias, and no RCTs compare their
impact upon patient symptoms and other patient-centred outcomes. On this latter point, qualitative data
addressing patient factors are also fundamental considerations, such as patient preferences for choice of
treatment setting as well as their tolerance and acceptability of interventional hysteroscopic procedures in an
outpatient setting without general anaesthesia. OPH is known to be associated with discomfort and can
induce anxiety.32,120 Thus, practitioners and patient fears over inducing pain may also influence the continued
16
use of inpatient admission to hospital and general anaesthesia. Moreover, the relative cost-effectiveness of
outpatient polyp treatment (OPT) compared with traditional inpatient approaches remains unclear.
The limitations placed upon intrauterine surgery in the conscious outpatient, which include pain tolerance
and problems with access or manipulation of miniature hysteroscopic equipment, may translate into reduced
feasibility and poorer clinical outcomes. However, even if this were proven, the advantages to women of
outpatient intervention in terms of safety, convenience and efficiency may outweigh any inferiority in clinical
effectiveness. In addition to these considerations, the inflated cost of miniaturised technologically advanced
equipment required for most outpatient procedures combined with the potential for poorer clinical outcomes
may offset the efficiency of outpatient polypectomy, even when it is performed immediately following
diagnosis at OPH – the ‘see and treat’ approach. Thus, outpatient polypectomy may remain an attractive
and preferred treatment option, even if it were not much worse than, or ‘non-inferior to’, standard
inpatient treatment.
In light of these considerations, the traditional RCT objective of establishing superiority of a new treatment,
in this case outpatient polypectomy, was thought to be inappropriate. Establishing that outpatient treatment
is not unacceptably worse than standard inpatient approaches requires a non-inferiority trial.
Thus further research in the form of an adequately powered RCT between treatment settings (outpatient
vs. inpatient), stratified by type (i.e. pattern) of AUB, is required to assess the therapeutic role, patient
acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of uterine polypectomy in AUB both in the short and
longer term. The need for such a trial was evident from publications25,32,87,121,122 and supported by UK
consultant gynaecologists. Our national survey in 2001 indicated that 268 of 854 (31%) of gynaecologists
performing uterine polypectomy were supportive of a trial comparing inpatient with outpatient uterine
polypectomy.45 This implies that the newer outpatient approach had been introduced in some centres
without definite evidence but opinion regarding its use is not yet solidified (i.e. collective equipoise) making
the need for a trial even more urgent. Furthermore, a recent practice guideline on the diagnosis and
management of endometrial polyps produced by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists
(AAGL) highlighted the ‘paucity of high-quality data in the subject area of endometrial polyps given the
common occurrence of this pathology. The following considerations are proposed for future research:
1. Randomized trials of women with abnormal uterine bleeding to evaluate the clinical outcome of
polypectomy and 2. Cost comparisons of different methods for hysteroscopic removal of polyps, including
outpatient and outpatient locations’.25
Assessing feasibility for a randomised controlled trial: the Outpatient versus

inpatient Polyp Treatment pilot trial
In addition to systematically reviewing the medical literature87 and performing a national survey of practice,45
we undertook two primary clinical studies. The first was an observational cohort study to compare outpatient
hysteroscopic polypectomy in the treatment of symptomatic endometrial polyps with inpatient management.97
This study demonstrated that outpatient treatment was technically feasible and it had the potential to be
efficacious and cost-effective. From this we launched an external pilot RCT of 60 patients in a single centre to
assess the acceptability of randomisation to patients (TJ Clark, personal communication).
A short summary of the methods used and results are given below.
Objectives
l To help us to optimise the trial design for a robust large scale, multicentre study with adequate
statistical power to evaluate OPT reliably.
l To demonstrate the acceptability of randomisation.
17
SO16 7NS, UK.
INTRODUCTION
l To establish standardised operating procedures for trial management, and piloted questionnaires and
consent forms patients.
l To inform the sample size of a larger study.
Methods
All women with AUB who are referred for a diagnostic OPH between January and July 2000 at the
Birmingham Women’s Hospital were approached for consent to participate in this pilot trial. AUB was
defined according to four categories: (1) PMB; (2) unscheduled bleeding while on HRT or tamoxifen for
> 6 months; (3) IMB in women > 40 years old; and (4) excessive menstrual bleeding refractory to medical
therapy. At OPH, those women with a benign uterine polyp [endometrial polyp or pedunculated (grade 0)
fibroid] as described by Clark et al.,32 were randomised to immediate outpatient polypectomy under
local anaesthesia or delayed (within 3 months of randomisation) inpatient uterine polypectomy
under general anaesthesia as a day case. Women were excluded if hysteroscopic features suggested a
malignant lesion or when additional pelvic pathology necessitated hysterectomy. Inclusion and exclusion
criteria, in full, are shown below.
Inclusion criteria
l AUB requiring diagnostic hysteroscopy.

l Finding of a benign polyp on diagnostic hysteroscopy.
l No hysteroscopic features suspicious of malignancy.
l Need for polypectomy or myomectomy.
Exclusion criteria
l Hysteroscopic features suggesting malignant lesion.

l Additional pathology necessitating hysterectomy.
Interventions
Outpatient uterine polypectomy was performed under direct hysteroscopic vision using Versapoint® spring
tip bipolar electrodes (Gynecare, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) as previously described.32,97 Inpatient
uterine polypectomy was performed under general anaesthesia by traditional D&C, blind avulsion with
or without prior localising hysteroscopy or under direct vision using an operative hysteroscope. In most
instances, wide dilatation of the cervical canal was required to accommodate the larger diameter inpatient
instruments within the uterus.
Outcomes
Patient completed outcomes, administered by postal questionnaire, were collected at baseline then at
3, 6 and 12 months post surgery. These consisted of:
l Bleeding response: a 100-mm VAS to measure bleeding in the last month. The scale was anchored at
each end by ‘none’ and ‘continuous’. For those women who expected bleeding (premenopausal and
those on sequential HRT) we considered a 50% reduction from baseline in bleeding score as a
‘success’. For those women for whom no bleeding was expected (postmenopausal) we considered a
score of 0–3 mm a ‘success’.
l Disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) was evaluated using the disease-specific
Menorrhagia Multi-attribute Assessment Scale (MMAS).123 Scores range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best).
l Generic HRQL using the generic EuroQol European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) instrument.124
Scores range from –0.59 (worst) to 1.0 (best). Health thermometer scores range from 0 (worst)
to 100 (best).
l Sexual satisfaction and functioning using the Index of Sexual Satisfaction (ISS).125 Scores range from
0 (best) to 100 (worst).
18
Randomisation and blinding

Sixty women were randomised. The University of Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit provided third-party
randomisation. For the randomisation sequence, variable block size in balanced groups was used to avoid
any possibility of foreknowledge. Surgeons and patients could not be blinded in this study (to prevent
performance bias and measurement bias) owing to the nature of the comparison, but randomisation was
concealed such that the surgeons would be kept unaware of the patient’s group allocation until they had
completed the diagnostic OPH, thereby preventing selection bias. In addition, the outcome assessments
were conducted by self-administered questionnaires, avoiding possible bias arising from the influence of
clinicians’ knowledge of patient’s group allocation at medical follow-up.
Statistical considerations
No formal sample size calculation was made. As many women as possible were randomised over the
6-month period; we considered this length of time to be long enough to achieve our stated objectives.
Summary statistics were produced to describe the demographics of the women randomised. No formal
hypothesis testing was attempted on the outcome data, as with this size of sample we could not expect
any statistically significant differences; this was not our objective here. Summary statistics for patient
completed outcome measures at each time point are presented alongside estimates of uncertainty around
point estimates: 95% two-sided CIs for RRs and mean differences between groups. Estimates of
differences were adjusted for baseline using analysis of covariance. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT).
Summary of results
In total, 60 women were randomised to either inpatient or outpatient uterine polypectomy (Figure 4).
The questionnaire response rate at 6 months was 54 of 60 (90%), although not all of the components
of the questionnaire were always completed.
The baseline characteristics of the women randomised are shown in Table 5. Some slight imbalance was
seen in some of the parameters that would be expected in a study of this size.
Bleeding response
Completed responses were available for 45 of 60 (75%) of the women randomised at 6 months. At this
time point, successful bleeding response followed outpatient uterine polypectomy in 19/22 (86%) women,
compared with 16/23 (69%) after inpatient uterine polypectomy at 6 months (Table 6). Similar proportions
were seen at 1 year. Detailed VAS bleeding scores for those women who were expecting bleeding are
detailed in Table 7.
Quality of life
Results for the disease-specific (MMAS) and generic quality of life (EQ-5D) scores are given in Tables 8 and 9.
Scores generally appeared to improve from baseline. Sexual satisfaction score are given in Table 10;
no obvious increasing or decreasing trend was noted here. Low response rates were noted for the MMAS
and sexual satisfaction questionnaires.
19
SO16 7NS, UK.
INTRODUCTION
Randomised (n = 60)
Enrolment
Allocation
Outpatient uterine polyp Inpatient uterine polyp

treatment ‘OPT’ (n = 30) treatment (n = 30)
One woman decided against treatment One woman decided against treatment
Lost to follow-up (n = 4) Lost to follow-up (n = 2)

Follow-up
Four women did not return postal Two women did not return postal
questionnaires despite reminders questionnaires despite reminders
Analysed (n = 26 maximum) Analysed (n = 28 maximum)

Analysis at
6 months
Excluded from analysis (n = 0) Excluded from analysis (n = 0)

Some responses not complete Some responses not complete
• see Results • see Results
FIGURE 4 Pilot OPT Trial profile.
20
TABLE 5 Baseline patient characteristics
Patient characteristic Outpatient (n = 30) Inpatient (n = 30)
Age, years 54 [7.8] 57 [7.8]
Parity:
0 3 (10) 2 (7)
1–3 20 (67) 20 (67)
>3 5 (16) 6 (20)
Not reported 2 (7) 2 (6)

Marital status
Married 21 (70) 23 (77)
Other 8 (27) 5 (17)
Sexually active
Yes 17 (57) 21 (70)
No 12 (40) 7 (23)
AUB
Postmenopausal bleeding 10 (33) 9 (30)
Unscheduled bleeding on HRT 13 (43) 16 (53)
IMB 5 (17) 4 (13)
Excessive menstrual bleeding 2 (7) 1 (4)
Other uterine pathology

None 30 (100) 27 (90)
SMF – 1 (3)
Not reported – 2 (7)

SD, standard deviation.
Values are presented as n (%)/mean [SD] where appropriate.
TABLE 6 Bleeding response success
Time from treatment Outpatient Inpatient RR (95% CI)a
3 months 13/19 (68%) 13/22 (59%) 1.16 (0.73 to 1.84)
6 months 19/22 (86%) 16/23 (69%) 1.24 (0.90 to 1.71)
1 year 19/24 (79%) 15/22 (68%) 1.16 (0.82 to 1.65)

a Value of >1 favours outpatient.
21
SO16 7NS, UK.
INTRODUCTION
TABLE 7 Visual analogue scores for bleeding (lower score = better)
Time of assessment Outpatient, mean (SD) Inpatient, mean (SD) Difference between groups, 95% CIa
Baseline n = 8, 47.6 (33.5) n = 11, 33.3 (25.6) –
3 months n = 10, 22.7 (22.1) n = 11, 24.9 (35.1) 0.6 (–26.4 to 28.6)
6 months n = 11, 17.4 (25.2) n = 12, 13.5 (22.6) 3.8 (–15.5 to 23.2)
1 year n = 12, 21.3 (33.0) n = 11, 19.1 (26.4) 4.3 (–22.1 to 30.6)
n, number of responses; SD, standard deviation.
a Value of > 0 favours outpatient.
TABLE 8 Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Assessment Scale scores (higher score = better)
Time of assessment Outpatient, mean (SD) Inpatient, mean (SD) Difference between groups (95% CI)a
Baseline n = 6, 60.0 (28.9) n = 5, 63.6 (22.3) –
3 months n = 5, 68.5 (22.1) n = 5, 65.3 (19.0) 8.3 (–20.5 to 37.0)
6 months n = 6, 77.7 (17.9) n = 5, 79.4 (26.2) –2.2 (–31.5 to 27.0)
1 year n = 7, 76.0 (24.2) n = 5, 73.6 (30.2) 2.4 (–31.5 to 36.2)

TABLE 9 EuroQol EQ-5D and health thermometer scores (higher score = better)
Time of assessment Outpatient, mean (SD) Inpatient, mean (SD) Difference between groups (95% CI)a
EuroQoL EQ-5D
Baseline n = 27, 0.75 (0.29) n = 28, 0.78 (0.21) –
3 months n = 25, 0.81 (0.31) n = 26, 0.86 (0.18) –0.04 (–0.14 to 0.07)
6 months n = 26, 0.86 (0.22) n = 28, 0.88 (0.14) –0.01 (–0.11 to 0.08)
1 year n = 27, 0.81 (0.29) n = 27, 0.86 (0.18) –0.04 (–0.16 to 0.08)
EuroQoL health thermometer
Baseline n = 25, 78.1 (18.1) n = 25, 77.5 (20.6) –
3 months n = 23, 78.3 (16.5) n = 26, 76.4 (18.9) –0.2 (–9.9 to 9.5)
6 months n = 23, 80.7 (19.6) n = 28, 79.0 (16.1) 0.5 (–8.8 to 9.9)
1 year n = 26, 74.5 (23.0) n = 28, 81.1 (15.7) –3.9 (–14.5 to 6.7)
TABLE 10 Sexual satisfaction scores (lower score = better)
Time of assessment Outpatient, mean (SD) Inpatient, mean (SD) Difference between groups, 95% CIa
Baseline n = 12, 17.8 (11.3) n = 16, 23.6 (15.8) –
3 months n = 8, 16.9 (13.4) n = 12, 16.8 (14.5) –2.8 (–14.2 to 8.5)
6 months n = 9, 19.8 (9.4) n = 10, 21.4 (14.7) –2.1 (–10.2 to 5.9)

1 year n = 12, 22.1 (17.0) n = 11, 20.2 (14.8) 0.4 (–5.3 to 6.1)
22
Interpretation
The pilot RCT data demonstrated the acceptability of randomisation, as well as establishing standardised
operating procedures for trial management, and piloted questionnaires and consent forms for patients.
The accrual rate from a single centre convinced us of the feasibility of undertaking a multicentre trial,
especially upon the background of a rapid increase in the provision of OPH facilities within the UK.45
Impact on planning for a definitive trial

Although AUB may affect the sexual domain of life quality, the response to the ISS was low. This probably
reflected the sensitive nature of the questions presented to women of all ages, some of whom may have felt
them intrusive or irrelevant. Moreover, the cumulative burden of completing various outcome questionnaires
may have been a disadvantage. In view of the low response rate and the concern that potentially inclusion of
the ISS may compromise return of the primary outcome in the definitive trial, a decision was made to no
longer include the ISS as one of the secondary outcome measures. The response rate to the condition-specific
MMAS was also low. This was mainly because it is a condition-specific questionnaire designed for use in
women with HMB. However, in the pilot study the MMAS was included within the self-completed outcome
booklet that was sent to all women and was not restricted to the minority of women who actually presented
with HMB. Consequently, the MMAS was considered irrelevant and ignored by the majority of participants.
The use of disease-specific questionnaires, such as the MMAS, has been encouraged as an important and
more sensitive patient-reported outcome in trials.126,127 In light of this we planned to retain the MMAS in the
multicentre trial but make it clear within the patient-reported outcome questionnaires that the MMAS should
be completed by only those women with regular periods or hormone-induced withdrawal bleeds, even if their
presenting complaint is unscheduled bleeding rather than HMB.
Participants found that understanding the concept of the VAS, as applied to amount of bleeding, was
difficult. This reflected a lack of familiarity in providing responses on a continuous scale, especially as
most women with AUB included in the pilot did not have HMB, so that the nature of the bleeding, not
the amount of bleeding, was the primary concern. It was clear therefore that if we were to maintain the
relevance and generalisability of our work in a future, larger-scale trial we would have to include all types
of AUB found in association with uterine polyps (i.e. HMB, IMB and PMB) and measurement of the primary
outcome – successful alleviation of AUB symptoms – needed to be revised.
This pilot RCT appeared to show that outpatient treatment was comparable to inpatient treatment in
terms of symptomatic relief (86% vs. 69% respectively). However, given the difficulties with VAS score
responses in this population as previously detailed we exercised caution in directly applying these
proportions to inform the sample size of the definitive study. Furthermore, it should be noted that they
were derived from a small population in a single specialist ambulatory tertiary referral centre. Uncontrolled
series included in the original systematic review87 showed symptomatic relief in up to 100% of women
treated as inpatients. The only controlled series included in the review reported an 80% vs. 90%
satisfaction with treatment outcome in favour of inpatient treatment. Thus, all this evidence was used in
combination to inform the sample size calculation for the proposed multicentre RCT.
Clinical factors and prognosis

As outlined above (see Abnormal uterine bleeding), AUB comprises a number of complaints in women of
both pre- and postreproductive age. Research to date is limited with regard to the impact of polypectomy
upon the type of bleeding complaint: HMB, IMB or PMB. In addition, AUB and polyp formation may be
affected by the use of exogenous sex steroid hormones found in HRT or the hormone partial agonist
tamoxifen,36,40,41 commonly used in the treatment of breast cancer. Symptomatic outcomes may also be
influenced by the location of the polyp within the uterus and its morphology. Fundally sited lesions can
be harder to remove because the attachment to the uterine wall is less accessible.32 Firmer fibrous lesions
can be harder to cut through with mechanical instruments and retrieve from the uterine cavity via the
narrow cervical canal. In contrast, softer glandular polyps may be more mobile and difficult to stabilise and
23
SO16 7NS, UK.
INTRODUCTION
detach but, because of their compressible consistency, they can be easier to extract from the uterine cavity.
These variables were therefore identified a priori as potential prognostic factors.
Design implications for the substantive study

Although outpatient treatment of uterine polyps necessitates in most cases the use of innovative miniature
endoscopic equipment, it is the treatment setting rather than the intervention itself that is novel. The
limitations of outpatient polypectomy discussed previously could potentially result in reduced feasibility
and poorer clinical outcomes. However, even if this were proven, the advantages to women of outpatient
intervention in terms of safety, convenience and efficiency may outweigh any inferiority in clinical
effectiveness. In addition to convenience, avoidance of inpatient stay and facilities may translate into
substantially reduced costs to health services. Thus, outpatient polypectomy may remain an attractive
and preferred treatment option, even if it were not much worse than, or ‘non-inferior to’, standard
inpatient treatment.
In light of these considerations, the traditional RCT objective of establishing superiority of a new
treatment, in this case outpatient polypectomy, was thought to be inappropriate. We therefore framed
our primary objective in terms of establishing that outpatient treatment was not unacceptably worse
than standard inpatient approaches. Therefore, we designed a non-inferiority trial. Based upon our own
experience and consultation with potential collaborating centres, we believed that outpatient would be the
treatment of choice even if 25% fewer women (in relative terms) had alleviated symptoms at 6 months.
Thus, the margin of non-inferiority was set at 0.75.
The pilot study did not formally collect data on the number of women declining randomisation on the
basis of a preference for immediate outpatient treatment under local anaesthesia or delayed inpatient
uterine polypectomy under general anaesthesia. However, experience suggested a substantial proportion
expressed a strong preference for one or the other setting. Women choosing their treatment setting may
tend to report more favourable outcomes, being empowered by having been part of the decision process,
or conversely may have high expectations of success and be disappointed with a less-than-complete
resolution of their symptoms. Given the potential for interaction between choice, or conversely lack of
choice if randomised, and outcome, we planned a parallel patient preference study using the same
outcome measures as the RCT.
Objectives of the Outpatient polyp treatment study

In undertaking the OPT study, we aimed to:
good, or no more than 25% worse (in relative terms), alleviation of bleeding symptoms at 6 months,
compared with standard inpatient treatment (principal objective)

ii. IMB compared with excessive menstruation
iii. postmenopausal women on HRT compared with those not on HRT
3. explore the variation in the effectiveness of outpatient polyp treatment compared with standard
inpatient polyp treatment at different periods of follow-up (12 and 24 months)
4. assess patient acceptability and impact on HRQL
5. perform an economic evaluation for cost-effectiveness.
24
Chapter 2 Methods of randomised controlled trial

and preference study
Objectives
The objectives of the clinical trial and preference study were to:
good, or no more than 25% worse (in relative terms), alleviation of bleeding symptoms compared with
standard inpatient treatment at 6 months (principal objective)

ii. IMB compared with excessive menstruation
iii. postmenopausal women on HRT compared with those not on HRT
3. explore the variation in the effectiveness of OPT compared with standard inpatient polyp treatment at
different periods of follow-up (12 and 24 months)
4. assess patient acceptability and impact on HRQL
5. investigate how treatment outcomes vary by choice.
Study design
The OPT study (Figure 5) was designed as a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority
trial of outpatient polypectomy compared with inpatient polypectomy with a concurrent non-randomised
cohort of women with a strong preference for treatment setting.
Identification of eligible women Strong preference for either

• Consent taken inpatient or outpatient
• Registration treatment setting
• REGISTER
• Inpatient or outpatient procedure
• Follow-up at 6 months only
Hysteroscopy
RANDOMISATION
(baseline questionnaire completed
if not already done so)
Random sample
• 10% of participants will
have a qualitative interview
INPATIENT OUTPATIENT
Procedure Procedure
Follow-up
• By postal questionnaire at 6, 12
and 24 months
FIGURE 5 Outpatient polyp treatment flow diagram.
25
SO16 7NS, UK.
METHODS OF RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL AND PREFERENCE STUDY
Both the RCT and preference study had the same setting, structure and design, including outcome
measures, although the preference study had a shorter follow-up length only up to 6 months; this was to
encourage participation, as well as to minimise costs of longer-term follow-up.
Screening and consent prior to outpatient hysteroscopy

All women with AUB seen in hospital outpatient clinics and undergoing a diagnostic OPH were considered
for the trial. The trial was introduced to them in the outpatient clinic and a comprehensive, evidence-based
patient information sheet was provided, either at the first clinic visit or with the appointment letter for the
hysteroscopy. Participant information sheets and consent forms were provided to each centre in English
and other languages as appropriate to their local community.
Before the procedure, the women were given the chance to discuss the risks and benefits of uterine
polypectomy in the outpatient setting using local anaesthesia and in the inpatient setting under general
anaesthesia, the process of randomisation and the follow-up requirements with the consultant
gynaecologist and/or gynaecology nurse. It was carefully explained that the final decision about eligibility
would be taken during the hysteroscopic examination and would be dependent on the findings; therefore,
consent was required before the procedure. Women were informed that the process of randomisation
would prolong the diagnostic procedure time by up to 2 minutes. Women were also made aware that if
the allocation was outpatient polypectomy then the procedure would be undertaken immediately in most
instances and treatment would take an additional 10–15 minutes on average, whereas if the allocation
was inpatient polypectomy, the diagnostic hysteroscope would be removed and she would be given
another appointment for the inpatient procedure within 8 weeks. Women were also informed that only
about one in four women will have a uterine polyp and therefore be eligible for the OPT Trial. Each
woman appreciated that if a polyp was not found, appropriate treatment would be offered but she would
not be recruited into the trial. In this case, the consent form, baseline questionnaire and randomisation
form would be destroyed.
In centres at which a ‘see and treat’ outpatient approach was not used (i.e. outpatient as well as inpatient
polypectomies were scheduled for a later date), discussion about participation into the OPT Trial and
randomisation could take place after the diagnostic hysteroscopy in eligible women known to have
uterine polyp.
Determining eligibility
All women with AUB who provided written informed consent to participate in the OPT study and satisfied
the eligibility criteria were included. Those women consenting to the RCT were to be randomised following
the diagnostic OPH procedure. Those consenting to participate in the preference study were treated
according to their preference. The practitioner inspected the uterine cavity, according to their standard
hysteroscopic protocol, to determine the presence of uterine polyp(s), absence of any excluding pathology
and technical feasibility for outpatient polypectomy. For the purpose of the OPT Trial a uterine polyp was
defined at diagnostic hysteroscopy as:
A discrete outgrowth of endometrium, attached by a pedicle, which moves with the flow of the
distension medium.[32] Polyps may be pedunculated or sessile, single or multiple and vary in size
(the variable amount of glands, stroma and blood vessels that constitute the polyp will influence their
macroscopic appearance [i.e. glandulocystic polyps or firmer, more fibrous polyps (indistinguishable in
some instances from grade 0 submucous fibroids)].
The following inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied to assess eligibility.
Inclusion criteria
l Aged ≥ 16 years.
l AUB requiring diagnostic hysteroscopy.
26
l Finding of a benign polyp or polyps (glandulocystic or pedunculated/grade 0 fibroid) on

diagnostic hysteroscopy.
l Feasible to remove polyp as an outpatient.
l Need for polypectomy.
l Ability to perform polypectomy within 8 weeks of diagnosis.
l Baseline questionnaire completed prior to the hysteroscopy.
l Written informed consent obtained prior to the hysteroscopy.
Exclusion criteria
l Hysteroscopic features suggesting malignant lesion.

l Need for other uterine surgical intervention (i.e. endometrial ablation, resection, myomectomy
or hysterectomy).
l Additional pathology necessitating hysterectomy.
Randomisation
If the woman was found to be eligible for the OPT Trial, the gynaecologist or member of his/her team
obtained a randomised allocation during the hysteroscopic examination. Randomisation notepads were
provided to investigators and used to collate the necessary information prior to randomisation. Participants
were entered and randomised into the trial in a 1 : 1 ratio via a short telephone call to the Birmingham
Clinical Trials Unit, or by logging into a secure web-based randomisation system. To avoid any possibility of
foreknowledge, the randomiser needed to provide the name and date of birth of the participant, and
confirm the eligibility and stratification criteria, whereupon a randomised allocation was provided and a
trial number allocated.
Women with strong preference for treatment setting

It was anticipated that some women may be prepared to participate in the OPT study but not wish to be
randomised between surgical treatments because they held clear preference for immediate outpatient
treatment under local anaesthesia or conversely delayed inpatient uterine polypectomy under general
anaesthesia. These women were invited to participate in a preference study and entered the same way as
those randomised except that they received the treatment for which they had a preference. These women
were followed up for 6 months.
Stratification of randomisation
A minimisation procedure using a computer-based algorithm was used to avoid chance imbalances in
important variables. The variables chosen were:
l premenopausal compared with postmenopausal women

l postmenopausal women on HRT compared with those not on HRT
l whether the predominant abnormal bleeding complaint is (excessive) HMB or IMB/
unscheduled bleeding
l history of using tamoxifen (current or previous user vs. those who have never used)
l location of uterine polyp (fundal vs. non-fundal)
l type of uterine polyp (endometrial ‘glandulocystic’ vs. fibrous).
For analysis purposes (see Chapter 3), because of the small numbers of the included women taking HRT,
or with a history of use of tamoxifen, we narrowed these variables down to a shorter list of three:
l type of bleeding PMB/HMB/IMB (for definitions, see Table 1)

l location of uterine polyp (fundal vs. non-fundal)
l type of uterine polyp (endometrial ‘glandulocystic’ vs. fibrous).
27
SO16 7NS, UK.
Treatment allocations
Surgical procedures
A named investigator(s), with suitable training and experience in both outpatient and inpatient uterine
polypectomy, performed all surgical procedures within participating centres.
Outpatient polypectomy
Outpatient polypectomy was performed immediately after diagnosis at OPH in most instances, although
some participants had their outpatient treatment scheduled, depending upon local circumstances, within
the following 8 weeks. Polyp removal was carried out under direct hysteroscopic vision using miniature
mechanical or electrosurgical instruments, with or without the need for minor degrees of cervical dilatation
and local anaesthesia (direct cervical infiltration or paracervical injection). On occasion, blind avulsion with
small polypectomy forceps after hysteroscopic localisation may be required to remove the polyp, and this
approach was permitted.
Inpatient polypectomy
Inpatient polypectomy was aimed to be performed within 8 weeks of the initial diagnosis at OPH. Inpatient
polypectomy was carried out by traditional D&C, blind avulsion – with or without prior localising
hysteroscopy – or under direct vision using an operative hysteroscope. In most instances, dilatation of the
cervical canal was required to accommodate the larger diameter inpatient instruments within the uterus.
General or spinal anaesthesia facilitated major degrees of cervical dilatation and manipulation of these
larger diameter instruments within the uterine cavity.
Failure of procedure
Occasionally, complete removal of a uterine polyp under local anaesthetic may not always be possible,
usually because of pain or anxiety or because of the technical limitations associated with the
miniaturisation of equipment. Successful outpatient polypectomy is possible in the majority of women,97
but the probability of success was not readily predictable. In cases when outpatient treatment had to be
abandoned, a second procedure under general anaesthetic was scheduled as soon as possible. Women
who required a second procedure were not excluded or withdrawn from the OPT Trial. It was sensitively
explained to them that follow-up information is still very important, despite the change in treatment, and
unless they wished to be withdrawn completely from the trial they would continue to be followed up.
When inpatient treatment failed, further treatment options depended upon the reason for technical
failure. Women could be rescheduled for the same procedure or rescheduled using a different surgical
approach either as an inpatient or an outpatient.
Concomitant interventions and treatments

It was anticipated that most women presenting with AUB found to be associated with a uterine polyp
would require no further intervention other that uterine polypectomy (either as an outpatient or inpatient).
However, in some circumstances, particularly those premenopausal women with HMB, additional medical
treatments could be considered necessary by the responsible clinician at the time of polypectomy, or
subsequently. These could include non-hormonal medical treatments [e.g. non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
agents, tranexamic acid (Cyclokapron®, Pfizer)] or hormonal medical treatments [e.g. combined oral
contraceptive pill, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena®, Bayer), local or systemic HRT].
Surgical interventions in the form of endometrial ablations or hysterectomy may subsequently be necessary
and the need for such interventions was to be recorded. However, if the need for additional surgery at the
time of polyp diagnosis was indicated then such patients were ineligible to be recruited to the OPT Trial.
Patients with AUB associated with polyps were managed as they would be in routine clinical practice after
polyp removal, with all therapeutic interventions additional to uterine polypectomy recorded.
28
Withdrawal from the Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment Trial

All women who consented to the randomised OPT Trial, or to the preference study, were followed up and
asked to complete postal questionnaires, regardless of actual treatment received.
If a woman specifically requested a treatment setting after randomisation then her choices were respected
but did not necessitate withdrawal from the trial, nor did failure of the outpatient procedure or
subsequent inpatient treatment. In both circumstances, it was sensitively explained to women that
follow-up information was still very important and, unless they wished to withdraw completely from the
trial, they would be followed up. The OPT Trial office was notified of any withdrawal of consent for further
follow-up.
Serious and unexpected adverse events

There may be mortality and morbidity associated with either polypectomy procedure, therefore all serious
adverse events (SAEs) were to be reported by fax to the OPT Trial office as soon as possible. This report
was to be followed within 2 days by a completed SAE form. For the purposes of this study, SAEs were
defined as those that are fatal, life-threatening, disabling or requiring prolonged hospitalisation, and had
resulted from the hysteroscopy, the polypectomy procedure, the anaesthetic or postoperative recovery,
for example deep-vein thrombosis and hospital-acquired infections.
Other management at discretion of local doctors

Apart from the trial treatments allocated at randomisation, all other aspects of patient management were
left entirely at the discretion of the local investigators.
Follow-up and outcome measures
Format
Patient-orientated outcomes were collected using a postal questionnaire, which included a combination
of disease-specific and generic measurement instruments, tailored according to the initial symptom at
presentation. The postal questionnaires were sent from the OPT Trial office with postage-paid envelopes
2 weeks before the due date. Reminders were sent to patients if the questionnaire was not returned
within 1 week of the due date and attempts were made to contact the patient by phone if the
questionnaire was not returned by 2 weeks after the due date.
Timing of assessments
The primary time point was 6 months post treatment. In addition, assessments took place at baseline
(i.e. time of recruitment and randomisation to OPT Trial), 12 and 24 months post treatment.
Primary clinical outcome measure: treatment success

The woman’s own assessment of bleeding symptoms, using a dichotomous outcome measure, was used
to establish if the treatment had been successful. This outcome was to be considered in a non-inferiority
framework (see Statistical analysis, below). The question used for this measure was dependent on whether
the patient was pre- or postmenopausal, the predominant complaint at randomisation and the type of HRT
they were using, if any. This is because successful alleviation of AUB varies according to the type of
bleeding associated with the presence of a uterine polyp(s). Eradication of bleeding is not the treatment
goal following polypectomy in women with HMB or scheduled withdrawal bleeds on sequential HRT, but
rather a reduction in bleeding to acceptable levels. In contrast, persistent unscheduled bleeding or PMB is
always considered abnormal. Thus for these categories of AUB, complete cessation of symptoms is the
clinical objective as opposed to a reduction in quantity. Further details can be seen in Figure 6. In all
cases a ‘yes’ response was defined as a success (outcome measure ‘1’ in the outcome measure boxes,
see Figure 6).
29
SO16 7NS, UK.
Pre- or postmenopausal?
Premenopausal Postmenopausal (LMP > 1 year)
Sequential HRT
HMB or
Sequential HRT or no HRT or
intermenstrual?
‘no-bleed’ HRT?
All: tamoxifen?
HMB Intermenstrual No HRT ‘No-bleed’ HRT
Group A Group B Group C

1. Has bleeding 1. Has intermenstrual 1. Has bleeding
Outcome returned to an bleeding stopped? stopped?
measures acceptable level? 2. Shaw Questionnaire 2. Modified Shaw
2. Shaw Questionnaire 3. EQ-5D Questionnaire
3. EQ-5D 4. Likert response 3. EQ-5D
4. Likert response 4. Likert response
5. VAS
FIGURE 6 Outpatient polyp treatment pathways for outcome measures. LMP, last menstrual period.
Secondary clinical outcome measures

Patient-completed measures:
l MMAS123 A multiattribute utility, designed to measure the impact of HMB upon HRQL. It has been
evaluated for its reliability and face validity (condition-specific instrument). Summary scores range from
0 (severely affected) to 100 (not affected). A modified version of the form was used for women whose
symptoms did not specifically relate to the questions on the form (group C in Figure 6). Our objective
here was to use the responses from this group to explore and develop the use of a modified
questionnaire for those patients for whom bleeding is not expected; results are not presented in
this report.
l EuroQol EQ-5D-3L124 EQ-5D-3L (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, three-level version) is a
standardised instrument for use as a generic measure of health outcome. Applicable to a wide range
of health conditions and treatments, it provides a simple descriptive profile and a single index value for
health status. Scores range from –0.59 (health state worse than death) to 1.0 (perfect health state).
l EuroQol health thermometer124 A VAS score ranging from 0 (worst health state imaginable) to 100
(perfect health state). Scores range from –0.59 (health state worse than death) to 1.0 (perfect health state).
l Likert bleeding scale All patients were asked how their bleeding had responded to treatment using
a Likert scale with four response options: ‘much better’, ‘little better’, ‘same’, ‘worse’.
l VAS to measure monthly bleeding quantity and duration It is now well established that objective
measures of blood loss are not particularly relevant to women’s subjective perception of bleeding
symptoms.126 For those patients with HMB (group A in Figure 6), our pilot work97,128 has demonstrated
that improvements in VAS scores correlate very well with improvements in categorical and
condition-specific quality-of-life measures. The reliability of VAS has been established in the assessment
of chronic gynaecological conditions, such as pain,129 and change in individual VAS scores were
considered to have sufficient psychometric strengths to be used in the research of AUB involving large
group comparisons.130 Scores range from ‘0’ (no days bleeding in the last month) to ‘100’ (bleeding
every day in the last month), and similarly ‘0’ (no bleeding in the last month) to ‘100’ (heaviest
imaginable bleeding in the last month).
30
l Perioperative measures Type, location and number of uterine polyps; size of largest polyp; the need
for dilatation of the cervix; the use of a vaginal speculum; the technique used to remove the polyp(s)
[hysteroscopic (direct vision) or non-hysteroscopic (blind) or combination]; the instruments used to
remove the polyp(s) [hysteroscopic (electrosurgery or mechanical or combination) or non-hysteroscopic
instrumentation]; the technique used to retrieve the polyp(s) [hysteroscopic or non-hysteroscopic;
removal success, defined as complete removal and retrieval of polyp(s) from the uterine cavity];
the time taken to complete the polypectomy; the time in the outpatient room or operating theatre;
details of any operative or postoperative complications, including vasovagal reactions (a liberal clinical
diagnosis to define vasovagal episodes was used here, i.e. any woman who feels faint requiring her to
lie supine or with her head down); and details of any further treatment prescribed for bleeding.
l Procedure acceptability Questions assessing the patients’ experiences of the procedures focused on
pain [VAS; range ‘0’ (no pain) to ‘100’ (worst imaginable pain)] during the procedure (outpatient
polypectomy only), at 1 hour after the procedure and on discharge from hospital; acceptability of
procedure (totally, generally, fairly acceptable or unacceptable); embarrassment (extremely, moderately,
little, none); and ‘yes/no’ answers to questions regarding whether to recommend the procedure to a
friend, have the same treatment again and, upon reflection, whether the alternative treatment would
have been preferred.
l Other measures during follow-up Additional medical treatments for bleeding; further polyp
removal; gynaecological surgery; use of the following for reasons due to bleeding: outpatient clinic,
hospital (day case or inpatient), GP (surgery or at home); days off work; visits to hospital for reasons
unrelated to bleeding; visits to gynaecologist (not necessarily related to bleeding).
Statistical considerations
Sample size
The sample size for the RCT part of the study was chosen to give good statistical power to preclude any
clinically important inferiority of outpatient polypectomy compared with inpatient treatment.
Outpatient treatment is more convenient for women in that no inpatient stay is required and is also likely
to cost substantially less. We believed, therefore, that outpatient would be the treatment of choice,
even if 25% fewer women (in relative terms) had alleviated symptoms at 6 months, i.e. the margin of
non-inferiority was set at 0.75. Making the assumption that inpatient treatment would be 90% successful
(from the primary outcome) and outpatient 80% successful, a sample size of approximately 200 in each
arm (400 in total) would be needed to rule out a success rate of < 67.5% in the outpatient arm with
90% power, i.e. not > 25% worse (0.675/0.90 = 0.75). This calculation was based on a conservative
two-sided test at the 5% level (equivalent to a one-sided test at the 2.5% level). To also allow for a 15%
loss to follow-up, the sample size was inflated to 240 patients in each group (i.e. 480 patients in total).
No target sample size was set for the preference study, as many women as possible were recruited while
the randomised study was open to recruitment.
Statistical analysis
Randomised controlled trial

Primary analyses were by ITT but per-protocol (PP) sensitivity analyses were also conducted for the primary
outcome, as some protection for any theoretical increase in the risk of type I error (erroneously concluding
non-inferiority).131 The ITT analysis included all randomised patients in the groups to which they were
allocated, regardless of whether the women received this, or indeed any, treatment. The PP analysis
included only those women who received their allocated treatment at the time of their initial operation.
Point estimates and two-sided 95% CIs from unadjusted risk ratios were calculated for the primary
outcome measure using a log-binomial linear model. The trial could declare non-inferiority only if the lower
band of the CI was not lower than the prespecified margin of non-inferiority (RR of 0.75).132 Analysis was
31
SO16 7NS, UK.
performed once all patients had reached their final follow-up time point at 2 years, although 6 months’
follow-up was considered the primary outcome time (see Chapter 1, Objectives of the Outpatient versus
inpatient Polyp Treatment study).
Adjusted risk ratios (calculated through the addition of the minimisation parameters to the linear model)
were calculated as a sensitivity analysis for the primary outcome measure. Further sensitivity analysis for this
parameter included performing the analysis without the following: those who had received a LNG-IUS at
the time of operation; those who had gone on to receive a further related procedure; and those outcomes
reported at > 3 months after their due date. To examine the possible impact of missing data on the results,
sensitivity analysis was also performed, using a multiple imputation approach, on the primary outcome
measure. Missing responses were simulated using a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method that assumed
an arbitrary missing data pattern and a multivariate normal distribution. Variables, including treatment group,
the three subgroup variables (see Objectives) and a variable for each time point were included in the model
and used to generate 20 simulated data sets. Analysis was then performed on each set, with the results
combined using Rubin’s rule to obtain a single set of results (treatment effect estimate and CIs). Best- and
worst-case analyses were also performed, assuming that all missing responses were successful or unsuccessful.
Treatment by subgroup interaction parameters were included in the log-binomial linear model used to
generate the risk ratios to test for differences in treatment effect for the primary outcome measure
between prespecified subgroups [none of these interaction parameters was statistically important
(p < 0.05) and so effect sizes within subgroup were not investigated further].
Secondary end points measured on a continuous scale (scores from MMAS, EQ-5D and VAS) were analysed at
each time point using a linear model (analysis of covariance) adjusting for baseline score. Further adjusted risk
ratios were calculated as a sensitivity analysis for these parameters (as per the sensitivity analysis for the primary
outcome calculated through the addition of the minimisation parameters to the linear model). A repeated
measures analysis, including all assessment time points, was also performed.133 Models included parameters
allowing for group, time and baseline score. Furthermore, paired t-tests at each time point were used to
investigate change scores within groups. Analysis of bleeding scores on a VAS score scale was also performed
as a sensitivity analysis following a log transformation to stabilise the variance but this made no difference
to outcome and is not presented in this report. Standard tests were used for other outcome measures:
Cochran–Armitage test for trend for ordinal responses, t-tests for continuous data with a normal distribution,
Wilcoxon signed-rank test for skewed continuous data and chi-squared tests for binary and categorical
responses. The non-inferiority hypothesis did not apply for these other secondary end points; 95% CIs and
p-values from two-sided superiority tests are presented.134
The program SAS, version 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), was used for analyses. A statistical
analysis plan was agreed with the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee (DMEC) prior to analysis
(see Appendix 1).
Preference study
Chi-squared and t-tests were used to assess if there were any systematic differences between the
preference groups in terms of their baseline characteristics. Analysis was performed in a similar fashion
as per the randomised study with the exception of the repeated measures analysis (due to the fact there
was only one follow-up time point here). Where possible, adjusted estimates of differences between
groups (for the three variables listed in Objectives) were calculated (and are referred to in the text) to
take into account any systematic differences between the groups through known confounders. This was
not attempted, although for some outcome measures for which event rates were low (e.g. procedure
acceptability) PP subgroup or sensitivity analysis was not attempted for the preference study as it was felt
this would add little to the interpretation here. Any comparisons of results or demographics between RCT
and preference study are as a result of a combined analysis of both data sets. Indicator variables for the
type of study (randomised or preference) were used, with interactions between these and the relevant
variables examined through, for example, a logistic regression analysis.
32
Trial management
Independent Trial Steering Committee

The Trial Steering Committee (TSC) provided independent supervision for the trial, providing advice to the
Chief and Co-Investigators and the Sponsor on all aspects of the trial and affording protection for patients
by ensuring that the trial was conducted according to the Medical Research Council (MRC) Guidelines for
Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials (www.mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/good-clinical-practice-in-clinical-
trials/). The TSC consisted of the following independent members: Professor J Thornton (chairperson,
Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Nottingham); Professor P O’Donovan (Professor of
Medical Innovation and Gynaecology, University of Bradford); E Nicholls (Birmingham Women’s Hospital,
Patient and Public Involvement representative); Professor J Deeks (University of Birmingham, Statistician);
and Dr S Petrou (University of Oxford, Health Economist). Professor Deeks stepped down as a TSC member
during the study follow-up period after taking up a role as Director as the Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit.
He was not replaced on the Committee as the study was shortly due to finish.
Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee: determining when clear answers

have emerged
The role of the DMEC was to advise the chairperson of the TSC if, in their view, it had become apparent
during the period of recruitment that outpatient treatment was clearly inferior to standard inpatient
treatment. Alternatively, new evidence might have emerged from other sources that outpatient
polypectomy is definitely less effective than inpatient polypectomy. To protect against this, during the
period of recruitment to the study, interim analyses of major end points were supplied, in strict confidence,
to an independent DMEC, along with updates on results of other related studies, and any other analyses
that the DMEC requested. Pragmatic stopping criteria were used; the DMEC were to advise the
chairperson of the TSC if, in their view, any of the randomised comparisons in the trial provided both
(a) ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ that outpatient treatment is so inferior from inpatient treatment that
non-inferiority can never be demonstrated for all, or some, women, and (b) evidence that might reasonably
be expected to influence the patient management of many clinicians who were already aware of the other
main trial results. The TSC then decided whether to close or modify any part of the trial. Unless this
happened, however, the Trial Management Group (TMG), TSC, the investigators and all of the central
administrative staff (except the statisticians who supply the confidential analyses) remained unaware of the
interim results.
The DMEC consisted of the following independent members: Professor M Lumsden (chairperson, Professor
of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Glasgow); Professor S Bhattacharya (Professor of Obstetrics
and Gynaecology, University of Aberdeen); and Dr C Cummins (Paediatric Epidemiologist, University
of Birmingham and Birmingham Children’s Foundation Trust). They met on three occasions and
recommended continuing with the study with no change to the protocol.
Research governance
The trial was conducted according to the principles of the MRC Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice
in Clinical Trials (1998) and the UK NHS Research Governance Framework (www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/139565/dh_4122427.pdf). All Principal Investigators were
required to sign an Investigators’ Agreement, detailing their commitment to accrual, compliance, Good
Clinical Practice, confidentiality and publication. All of the Trusts hosting the research were required
to sign a Clinical Study Site Agreement, detailing the Trust’s responsibilities under the relevant Research
Governance Framework and accepting the terms and conditions of the per-patient payments. The sponsor
ensured that all researchers not employed by an NHS organisation, who had contact with patients and
could have an impact on their quality of care, held a NHS honorary contract for that organisation, or had
an honorary contract research passport.
33
SO16 7NS, UK.
Ethical approval
The Trial had a favourable ethical opinion from South West Multicentre Research Ethics Committee (MREC)
approval, determining that the trial design respects the rights, safety and well-being of the participants.
Every potential UK centre also obtained Local Research Ethics Committee (LREC) and Trust research and
development (R&D) approval.
The final protocol for the OPT Trial is available via the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) website:
www.hta.ac.uk/project/1679.asp.
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations134 were followed for the
reporting of this trial (see Appendix 9).
34
Chapter 3 Results of the randomised controlled

trial
Recruitment
There were 1537 women with AUB who were willing to be randomised and assessed for eligibility by
hysteroscopy. Of these, 507 women from 31 UK centres were randomised between April 2008 and July
2011 (Table 11 and Figure 7). The trial surpassed its original planned sample size with the permission of
the TSC, as recruitment towards the end of the trial was ahead of the anticipated rate. The most common
reason for ineligibility was ‘no polyp being present’ (85% of the 1030 not randomised). Of note, 4%
(40/1030) of the ineligible women had polyps that were considered by the hysteroscopist as infeasible to
remove in an outpatient setting (Figure 8).
TABLE 11 Recruitment by centre
Randomising centre Frequency (%)
Birmingham Women’s Hospital 168 (33)
Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh 43 (8)
Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle 42 (8)
Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield 33 (7)
Royal Blackburn Hospital 32 (6)

Queen’s Hospital, Romford 24 (5)
Castle Hill Hospital, East Riding 22 (4)
St Mary’s Hospital, London 21 (4)
Bradford Royal Infirmary 17 (3)
Barnsley District General Hospital 11 (2)
Ormskirk & District General Hospital 9 (2)
Sunderland City Hospital 9 (2)

Taunton & Somerset Hospital 8 (2)
Kidderminster General Hospital 7 (1)
New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton 7 (1)
Liverpool Women’s Hospital 6 (1)
Newham General Hospital 6 (1)
Countess of Chester Hospital 5 (1)
Queen Charlotte’s & Chelsea Hospital 5 (1)
University Hospital of North Staffordshire 5 (1)

Birmingham Heartlands Hospital 4 (1)
Worcestershire Royal Hospital 4 (1)
Bishop Auckland General Hospital 3 (1)

continued
35
SO16 7NS, UK.
RESULTS OF THE RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL
TABLE 11 Recruitment by centre (continued )
Chelsea & Westminster Hospital 3 (1)
Staffordshire General Hospital 3 (1)
Whiston Hospital, Merseyside 3 (1)
Shotley Bridge Hospital, County Durham 2 (< 1)
Solihull Hospital 2 (< 1)
City Hospital, Birmingham 1 (< 1)

Manor Hospital, Walsall 1 (< 1)
The Royal Oldham Hospital 1 (< 1)
Total 507
30 600
25 500
20 400
Cumulative total
Monthly total
Monthly total
15 300
Cumulative
10 200
5 100
0 0
8
pr 09
09
ob 009
pr 10
10
ob 010
10
pr 11
11
11
80
00
nu 200
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
2
il
ly
er
il
er
il
ly
er
il
ly
ar
ar
ar
pr
Ju
Ju
Ju
Ju
ob
nu
nu
A
A
ct
ct
ct
Ja
Ja
Ja
O
FIGURE 7 Trial accrual.
36
1537 willing to be randomised 1030 not randomised

and assessed for eligibility by • 872 (85%) no benign polyps
hysteroscopy • 58 (6%) hysteroscopy not feasible
• 40 (4%) not feasible to remove polyps
in an outpatient setting
• 22 (2%) possible malignant lesion
• 15 (1%) need for other uterine
surgical intervention
• 4 (<1%) consent withdrawn
• 2 (<1%) patient missed appointment
507 women randomised • 1 (<1%) hysterectomy required
• 1 (<1%) non-surgical treatment required
• 1 (<1%) no abnormal uterine bleeding
• 14 (1%) missing information
253 allocated to inpatient polypectomy

254 allocated to outpatient polypectomy
• 206 (81%) received randomised
• 230 (91%) received randomised
allocation (general or regional
allocation (local or no anaesthetic)
anaesthetic)
• 14 (6%) received inpatient
• 34 (13%) received outpatient
polypectomy (general anaesthetic)
polypectomy (local or no anaesthetic)
• 10 (4%) did not have operation
• 13 (5%) did not have operation
39 exited trial
26 exited trial • 29 lost to follow-up
• 24 lost to follow-up • 10 contacted and did not wish
• 2 contacted and did not to complete any more
wish to complete any follow-up forms
more follow-up forms (3 also missed 6-month time point
but available at 1 year)
228 available for analysis of 211 available for analysis of

primary outcome at 6 months primary outcome at 6 months
• 31 reoperations (14%), 25 of which • 6 reoperations (3%), 1 of which was
were planned at the time of original planned at the time of original
operation (24 as an inpatient, operation (3 as an inpatient, 3 as
6 as an outpatient, 1 unknown) an outpatient)
3 exited trial
• 1 died
• 2 contacted and did
not wish to complete
any more questionnaires

primary outcome at 1 year primary outcome at 1 year
• 9 reoperations (4%) (5 as an • 8 reoperations (4%) (3 as an
inpatient, 4 as an outpatient) inpatient, 5 as an outpatient)
18 exited trial
12 exited trial
• 3 died
• 9 lost to follow-up
• 8 lost to follow-up
• 3 contacted and did
• 7 contacted and did not
not wish to complete
wish to complete any
any more questionnaires
more follow-up forms

primary outcome at 2 years primary outcome at 2 years
• 12 reoperations (6%) • 8 reoperations (4%)
(2 as an inpatient, 9 as an (3 as an inpatient, 3 as an
outpatient, 1 unknown) outpatient, 2 unknown)
FIGURE 8 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram.
37
SO16 7NS, UK.
Patients and follow-up
Baseline characteristics of the patients were similar between the two groups. For 45% (227/507) of those
randomised, the initial complaint was PMB; 30% (153/507) had HMB and the remaining 25% (127/507)
had IMB. The predominant type of polyp was singular (394/507, 78%), non-fundal (309/507, 61%) and
glandular (378/507, 75%). The overwhelming majority (501/507, 99%) had no other benign pathology
(Table 12).
In the outpatient group, 230/254 (91%) women received their randomised allocation compared with
206/253 (81%) in the inpatient group. Twice as many women in the inpatient group had outpatient
treatment compared with the other way around (34/253, 13% vs. 14/254, 6%). Similar numbers in both
groups ended up not having any polyp removal (see Figure 8).
For 76% [363/478 (29 missing responses)] of the women entering the study, the intention at
randomisation was to undergo immediate removal (‘see and treat’) if allocated outpatient polypectomy,
with the remaining women to return for treatment at a later date. Upon comparison of randomisation
dates with treatment dates for the outpatient group this fell to around 72% [174/242 (12 dates
not completed)], which may reflect those patients who ultimately had inpatient polypectomy or did not
ultimately have a polyp removal. The median time from randomisation to treatment in the inpatient group
was 26 days [interquartile range (IQR) 14–42]. In the outpatient group this was 0 days (IQR 0–14).
Completed primary outcome responses were available from 439 of 507 (87%) participants at the primary
outcome time of 6 months (see Figure 8).
Operative results
Table 13 details the operative results. The mean polyp size estimated on visual inspection during
hysteroscopy was marginally greater (0.2 cm, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.3; p = 0.04) in the inpatient group than in
the outpatient treatment group. Compared with inpatient treatment, outpatient surgery necessitated less
use of vaginal instrumentation (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.71; p < 0.001) and dilatation of the cervix
(RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.50; p < 0.001). Removal of polyps under direct hysteroscopic vision was
significantly more common in the outpatient surgery setting (RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.6; p < 0.001) and
electrosurgery was the most popular method of detaching polyps, being employed in over half of all
outpatient cases (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.0; p < 0.001 compared with inpatient). Similarly, hysteroscopic
retrieval of polyp specimen(s) from the uterine cavity was the most common technique in the outpatient
setting, whereas blind mechanical extraction was preferred in the inpatient group (RR 2.2, 95% CI 1.7 to
2.9; p < 0.001).
Partial or failed removals occurred in 46/242 (19%) of the outpatient group compared with 18/233
(7%) in the inpatient group (RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1; p < 0.001). The most common reason for
incomplete removal in the outpatient group was patient discomfort (22/46, 48%). Of the 46 failed
outpatient procedures, 25 (54%) were immediately scheduled for subsequent reoperation, usually as an
inpatient procedure (23/25, 92%). Of the remainder, all these women were followed up for 2 years and
none had a subsequent polyp removal.
Sixteen per cent (74/451) of the women were fitted with a LNG-IUS at the time of operation; numbers
were similar in both groups (Table 14).
38
TABLE 12 Baseline characteristics
Polypectomy
Baseline characteristic Outpatient (n = 254) Inpatient (n = 253)
Age, years: mean (SD) 50 (10) 51 (11)
Ethnicity
White 207 (88) 179 (87)
Asian 17 (7) 16 (7)
Black 11 (5) 9 (4)
Other 1 (< 1) 1 (< 1)
Not given/not known 18 48

a
Predominant bleeding complaint at randomisation
Postmenopausala 113 (44) 114 (45)
Heavy menstrualb 77 (30) 76 (30)

Intermenstrualc 64 (25) 63 (25)
d
Site of uterine polyp
Fundal 99 (39) 99 (39)
Non-fundal 155 (61) 154 (61)
Type of uterine polypd
Glandular 190 (75) 188 (74)
Fibrous 64 (25) 65 (26)

No. of polyps
1 193 (76) 201 (79)
2 40 (16) 43 (17)
≥3 21 (8) 9 (4)
Other benign pathology
None 251 (99) 250 (99)
SMF/adhesion/septum – 1 (< 1)
Adhesion/septum – 1 (< 1)
SMF 2 (1) –
Septum 1 (< 1) 1 (< 1)

a A total of 29 of these women (13%) were currently taking a continuous combined ‘no bleed’ HRT (14 allocated to
inpatient group, 15 allocated to outpatient group).
b Includes one postmenopausal woman (1%) on a sequential HRT (allocated to inpatient group).
c Includes six postmenopausal women (5%) on a sequential HRT (two allocated to inpatient group, four allocated to
outpatient group).
d Minimisation variable and predefined subgroup.
Ten women (2%) had a history of taking tamoxifen (five allocated to each group). Five of these were currently taking the
therapy (two in the inpatient group, three in the outpatient group).
Values are presented as n (%)/mean [SD] where appropriate.
39
SO16 7NS, UK.
TABLE 13 Operative details
Polypectomy
Mean difference or RR
Operative details Outpatient Inpatient (95% CI);a p-value
Largest polyp size, cm: median (IQR), n 1.0 (0.6–2.0), 230 1.2 (1.0–2.0), 217 –0.2 (–0.3 to 0.0); 0.04
Need for cervical dilatation = yes 76/241 (32%) 178/232 (77%) 0.41 (0.34 to 0.50); < 0.001
Use of vaginal speculum = yes 126/236 (53%) 193/224 (86%) 0.62 (0.54 to 0.71); < 0.001
Use of local anaesthetic = yes 91/244 (37%) 15/240 (6%) 6.0 (3.6 to 10.0); < 0.001
Hysteroscopic removal = yes (vs. blind) 175/225 (78%) 122/217 (56%) 1.4 (1.2 to 1.6); < 0.001
Method used to detach n = 228 n = 222 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0);b < 0.001
Electrode 124 (54%) 75 (34%)
Mechanical 89 (39%) 139 (63%)
Combination 15 (7%) 8 (4%)
Method of retrieval n = 227 n = 223 2.2 (1.7 to 2.9);c < 0.001

Hysteroscopic 127 (56%) 56 (25%)
Mechanical 59 (26%) 147 (66%)
None 37 (16%) 15 (7%)
Time taken for polypectomy, minutes 10 (5–14), 223 10 (5–15), 186 –1.5 (–3.0 to 0.0); 0.006
[median (IQR), n]
Time in outpatient room/theatre, minutes: 25 (18–35), 225 27 (20–35), 216 –1.0 (–3.0 to 1.0); 0.6
median (IQR), n
Removal success n = 242 n = 233
Complete 196 (81%) 215 (92%)
Partiald 25 (10%) 15 (6%) 2.5 (1.5 to 4.1);e < 0.001
Failedd 21 (9%) 3 (1%)

n, number of responses.
a Mean difference of < 0 indicates lower with outpatient group, similarly RR < 1 is lower with outpatient group.
For skewed variables presented with medians, differences in location between groups were calculated using
Hodges–Lehmann estimates and Moses’ CIs.
b RR calculated from ‘electrode’ vs. any other category.
c RR calculated from ‘hysteroscopic’ vs. any other category.
d A total of 25 (10%) partial or failed patients in the outpatient group and 1 (< 1%) in the inpatient group were
immediately scheduled for reoperation. Twenty-four of these were scheduled to be an inpatient. Partial or failed reasons
in the outpatient group (percentages given of the total number, 242): patient discomfort (22, 9%), unable to locate
blindly (7, 3%), polyp too large (6, 2%), unable to access under vision (4, 2%), inadequate visualisation (3, 1%),
equipment failure (1, < 1%), polyp biopsied and ablated (1, < 1%), difficult procedure (1, < 1%), missing reason
(1, < 1%). Partial or failed reasons in the inpatient group (percentages given of the total number, 233): unable to locate
blindly (5, 2%), unable to access under vision (2, 1%), inadequate visualisation (2, 1%), uterine perforation (2, 1%),
actually a fibroid (2, 1%), patient discomfort (1, < 1%), broad stem (1, < 1%), forceps removal (1, < 1%), difficult
procedure (1, < 1%), diathermy failure (1, < 1%).
e RR calculated from ‘partial’ or ‘failed’ vs. complete.
40
TABLE 14 Operative and postoperative complications including further treatments/procedures given
Polypectomy
Complications and further treatment Outpatient Inpatient
Operative complications
n = 241 n = 233
Vasovagal episode 17 (7%) 3 (1%)
Nausea/pain 4 (2%) –
Cervical trauma – 3 (1%)
Uterine perforation – 4 (2%)
Haemorrhage – 3 (1%)
a
Other 2 (1%) 1 (< 1%)
Postoperative complications
n = 232 n = 223
Vomiting 6 (3%) 4 (2%)
Dizziness/nausea 5 (2%) 2 (1%)
Severe pain 3 (1%) –
Otherb 2 (1%) 2 (1%)
Further treatment/procedure given
n = 229 n = 222
Mirena IUS 31 (14%) 43 (19%)
Tranexamic acid 12 (5%) 1 (< 1%)
Progestogens 8 (3%) –
Endometrial destruction 4 (2%) 1 (< 1%)
Mefenamic acid (Ponstan, Pfizer) 1 (< 1%) 1 (< 1%)
Hysterectomy 1 (< 1%) 1 (< 1%)
Goserelin acetate 2 (1%) –

Missing reason – 1 (< 1%)
Otherc – 1 (< 1%)

IUS, intrauterine system; n, number of responses.
a Outpatient polypectomy complications: perineal numbness (1), diclofenac suppository given postoperatively (1);
inpatient polypectomy complications: false passage (1).
b Outpatient polypectomy complications: not given (1), complication from Entonox (1); inpatient polypectomy other
complications: antibiotics due to uterine perforation (1), intravenous cannula site pain (1).
c Transcervical resection of fibroids.
41
SO16 7NS, UK.
Serious adverse events
Four uterine perforations (4/233, 2%) occurred in the inpatient group and were recorded as SAEs
(see Table 13). One of these also involved bowel injury, which required an emergency laparotomy
and resection of small bowel with primary re-anastomosis (this required a further five nights in hospital).
Of the other three cases, one patient required further hospitalisation for formation of haematoma and
infection post perforation, with the other two patients being discharged the same day with antibiotics.
Two other SAEs were recorded: one woman had indwelling catheterisation following an inpatient removal.
The sole SAE in the outpatient group involved a woman who was admitted to a high-dependency unit as
she had experienced a recent myocardial infarction.
Treatment success: primary outcome
Successful response to surgery was reported by 73% of women at 6 months in the outpatient group
compared with 80% of women in the inpatient polypectomy group (ITT RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02;
PP RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02) (Figure 9). The lower end of the CI shows that outpatient polypectomy
is at most 18% (RR 0.82) worse in relative terms than inpatient treatment (same for both ITT and PP analyses),
within the 25% margin of non-inferiority we set at the outset of the study. In absolute terms this translates
to a risk difference of –0.07 (95% CI –0.16 to 0.03) and a lower bound of the CI for number needed to harm
(NNTH) of ‘6’ with outpatient treatment [NNTH 15, 95% CI 6 to number needed to benefit (NNTB) 39].
By 1 and 2 years, the corresponding proportions were very similar between groups producing RRs close to unity.
Full results can be seen in Table 15, including a further adjusted analysis (see Appendix 1, statistical analyses).
The various sensitivity analyses we completed on the treatment success parameter (described in Statistical
analysis, above) gave very similar results to this base case and did not change the interpretation (results
given in Appendix 10).
Results of a comparison of the primary outcome variable with EuroQol EQ-5D scores are given in Appendix 11;
‘success’ responses were associated with statistically significant higher EQ-5D scores than ‘failure’ responses.
There was no evidence that treatment success differed according to any of the predefined subgroups
at any of the time points when treatment by variable interaction parameters were examined (Table 16).
Results within subgroups (from the ITT population) are given in Figures 10–12 (error bars indicate 95% CIs).
Intention to treat
6 months
1 year
2 years
= margin of non-inferiority (0.75)

Per protocol RRs with 95% CIs shown
Direction of arrow favours inpatient polypectomy
6 months
1 year
2 years
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
FIGURE 9 Primary outcome: comparison with margin of non-inferiority.

42
TABLE 15 Primary outcome: treatment success
Polypectomy
Time of assessment Outpatient Inpatient RR (95% CI) Adjusteda RR (95% CI)
ITT
6 months 166/228 (73) 168/211 (80) 0.91 (0.82 to 1.02) 0.93 (0.85 to 1.02)
1 year 182/225 (81) 177/214 (83) 0.98 (0.90 to 1.07) 0.98 (0.91 to 1.06)
2 years 179/213 (84) 169/196 (86) 0.97 (0.90 to 1.06) 0.97 (0.91 to 1.05)
PP
6 months 153/210 (73) 143/180 (79) 0.92 (0.82 to 1.02) 0.93 (0.84 to 1.02)
1 year 168/206 (82) 153/184 (83) 0.98 (0.89 to 1.08) 0.98 (0.91 to 1.06)
2 years 165/197 (84) 146/168 (87) 0.96 (0.89 to 1.05) 0.97 (0.90 to 1.04)
a For the three minimisation variables listed in the table. Estimates of RR > 1 favour outpatient polypectomy; those of
RR < 1 favour inpatient polypectomy.
TABLE 16 Results of subgroup interaction tests (p-values shown)
Interaction variable examined 6 months 1 year 2 years
Treatment by predominant bleeding complaint 0.90 0.63 0.96
Treatment by polyp site 0.61 0.89 0.91
Treatment by polyp type 0.42 0.06 0.83
100
80
% treatment success
60
40
20
0
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
6 months 1 year 2 years 6 months 1 year 2 years 6 months 1 year 2 years
Postmenopausal Heavy menstrual Intermenstrual
FIGURE 10 Primary outcome: by predominant bleeding complaint.
43
SO16 7NS, UK.
100
80
% treatment success 60
40
20
0
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
6 months 1 year 2 years 6 months 1 year 2 years
Fundal Non-fundal
FIGURE 11 Primary outcome: by site of uterine polyp.
100
80
% treatment success
60
40
20
0
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
Outpatient
Inpatient
6 months 1 year 2 years 6 months 1 year 2 years

Glandular Fibrous
FIGURE 12 Primary outcome: by type of uterine polyp.
44
Major secondary outcomes
Responses from the Likert scale question on current bleeding compared with baseline bleeding yielded
similar results to the primary outcome (Table 17). Further adjusted analyses as described above
(see Statistical analysis) are also given for these outcomes in (see Appendix 12) and are very similar to
the unadjusted results.
Condition-specific and generic quality-of-life scores were significantly improved from baseline at most time
points in both groups with no differences between them (Table 18 and Figures 13–17). Similarly, for
women with HMB, the overall amount and duration of bleeding was significantly reduced in both groups
at all time points post treatment without any difference between groups. Further adjusted analyses, as
described in Chapter 2 (see Format), are also given for these outcomes in Appendix 13 and are very similar
to the unadjusted results. Appendix 14 describes the results for the VAS score analysis without those
prescribed LNG-IUS at the time of operation as a sensitivity analysis; results were very similar to the
base case.
TABLE 17 Likert response
Polypectomy
Compared with before your treatment,
Time of assessment would you say your bleeding is: Outpatient Inpatient
6 months Much better 164 (75%) 160 (81%)
Little better 24 (11%) 21 (11%)

Same 29 (13%) 12 (6%)
Worse 3 (1%) 4 (2%)
Total 220 197
Test for trend p-value 0.08

a
RR (95% CI) 0.93 (0.87 to 1.00)
1 year Much better 177 (80%) 174 (82%)
Little better 18 (8%) 12 (6%)

Same 21 (10%) 21 (10%)
Worse 5 (2%) 5 (2%)
Total 221 212

a
RR (95% CI) 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08)
2 years Much better 173 (82%) 172 (88%)

Same 18 (8%) 10 (5%)
Worse 4 (2%) 1 (1%)
Total 212 195

a
RR (95% CI) 0.95 (0.90 to 1.01)
a Much better/little better vs. same/worse combined categories used to calculate RR. Estimates of RR > 1 favour outpatient
polypectomy; those RR < 1 favour inpatient polypectomy.
45
SO16 7NS, UK.
TABLE 18 Results of secondary outcome measure: scores
Polypectomy, mean (SD, n)
Time of assessment Outpatient Inpatient Difference (95% CI);a p-value

MMASb
Baseline 52 (27, 134) 58 (24, 124)
6 months 78 (22, 115) c

79 (23, 99)c –1 (–7 to 5); 0.68
1 year 82 (23, 110)c 83 (21, 101)c –1 (–7 to 5); 0.78
2 years 84 (21, 93) c

85 (21, 83) c
–2 (–8 to 4); 0.47
Overall d
–1 (–6 to 4); 0.65
e
EuroQol EQ-5D
Baseline 0.78 (0.25, 242) 0.78 (0.27, 232)

6 months 0.87 (0.23, 230)c 0.87 (0.20, 211)c –0.01 (–0.04 to 0.03); 0.70
c c
1 year 0.86 (0.25, 227) 0.86 (0.24, 219) 0.00 (–0.04 to 0.04); 0.85
c
2 years 0.85 (0.25, 213) 0.84 (0.27, 196) 0.03 (–0.02 to 0.07); 0.28
Overalld 0.00 (–0.03 to 0.03); 0.99

EuroQol health thermometerf
Baseline 77 (18, 233) 78 (18, 225)

c
6 months 79 (18, 227) 80 (17, 212) 0 (–3 to 3), 0.89
1 year 80 (17, 228) c

82 (16, 219) c
–1 (–4 to 2), 0.50
2 years 79 (18, 207) 83 (16, 194)c –2 (–5 to 1), 0.19
Overall d
–1 (–3 to 1), 0.28
g
Bleeding duration VAS
Baseline 46 (28, 68) 53 (28, 67)
6 months 35 (30, 64) 28 (26, 56)c –10 (–21 to 1), 0.07
1 year 18 (21, 58)c 24 (28, 62)c 5 (–5 to 14), 0.32
2 years 16 (22, 61) c

15 (25, 53) c
–2 (–12 to 8), 0.65
Overall d
–3 (–10 to 4), 0.39
h
Bleeding amount VAS
Baseline 58 (28, 70) 66 (26, 68)

6 months 29 (29, 68) c
29 (29, 58)c –1 (–12 to 9), 0.82
1 year 23 (26, 66) c

19 (22, 66) c
–4 (–12 to 5), 0.36
2 years 19 (24, 63) c

18 (27, 57) c
–2 (–12 to 8), 0.66
Overalld –3 (–10 to 4), 0.40

a Difference between groups at each time point adjusted for baseline score. Estimates of differences > 0 favour
outpatient polypectomy; those < 0 favour inpatient polypectomy.
b MMAS questionnaire. Scores range from 0 (severely affected) to 100 (not affected). Restricted to those with HMB and IMB only.
c The p-value is < 0.05 when compared with baseline score within group (by paired t-test).
d Overall estimate is the mean difference over all time points using a repeated measures model including parameters
adjusting for group, baseline score and time. For details, see Statistical analysis, above.
e HRQL questionnaire. Scores range from –0.59 (health state worse than death) to 1.0 (perfect health state).
f HRQL questionnaire. Scores range 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 1.0 (best imaginable health state).
g VAS score. Scores range from 0 (no days of bleeding in the last month) to 100 (bleeding every day in the last month).
Restricted to those with HMB only.
h VAS score. Scores range from 0 (no bleeding in the last month) to 100 (heaviest imaginable bleeding in the last month).
46
100
80
Mean score
Inpatient
60
Outpatient
40
20
0
0 6 12 24
Time (months)
124 99 101 83
Patients
134 115 110 93
FIGURE 13 Menorrhagia Multi-attribute Assessment Scale scores over time by group (95% CI for mean shown
at each time point; higher = better).
1.0
0.8
Mean score
Inpatient
0.6
Outpatient
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 6 12 24
Time (months)
232 211 219 196
Patients
242 230 227 213
FIGURE 14 EuroQol EQ-5D scores over time by group (95% CI for mean shown at each time point; higher = better).
100
80
Mean score
Inpatient
60
Outpatient
40
20
0
0 6 12 24
Time (months)
225 212 219 196
Patients
233 227 228 207
FIGURE 15 EuroQol health thermometer scores over time by group (95% CI for mean shown at each time
point; higher = better).
47
SO16 7NS, UK.
100
80
Mean score
Inpatient
60
Outpatient
40
20
0
0 6 12 24
Time (months)
67 56 62 53
Patients
68 64 58 61
FIGURE 16 Visual analogue scale bleeding duration scores over time by group (95% CI for mean shown at each
time point; lower = better).
100
80
Mean score
Inpatient
60
Outpatient
40
20
0
0 6 12 24
Time (months)
68 58 66 57
Patients
70 68 66 63
FIGURE 17 Visual analogue scale bleeding amount scores over time by group (95% CI for mean shown at each time
point; lower = better).
Procedure acceptability
Mean pain scores 1 hour following the procedure and upon discharge were higher in the outpatient
polypectomy group than in the inpatient group (Table 19), although on average only by 5 (95% CI 0 to
10; p = 0.03) and 8 (95% CI 4 to 12; p < 0.001) points, respectively, out of a possible range of 100 points.
Responses to questions on procedure acceptability/recommend to a friend/have the same treatment again
were statistically significant in favour of inpatient polypectomy, although the levels of responses were high
for both groups; for example, 92% (205/222) of those randomised to outpatient polypectomy would
recommend the procedure to a friend and 98% (220/225) found the procedure at least ‘fairly acceptable’.
Further adjusted analyses, as described in Statistical analysis above, are also given for these outcomes in
Appendix 13, and are very similar to the unadjusted results.
Other outcomes
Similar numbers of women reported taking additional medical treatments for their bleeding during
the 2 years of follow-up (Tables 20 and 21). At 6 months, 15% (31/209) of women were using the
LNG-IUS in the inpatient group, compared with 9% (21/228) in the outpatient group. The corresponding
figures at 1 and 2 years were 10% (29/219) compared with 8% (19/227) and 11% (21/195) compared
with 11% (24/214).
48
TABLE 19 Operation acceptability: patient responses
Polypectomy
Difference or RR
Patient experience and preference Outpatient Inpatient (95% CI);a p-value
Mean pain score during procedure (SD, n)b 45 (26, 217) – –
Mean pain score 1 hour following procedure (SD, n)b 28 (23, 176) 23 (22, 191) –5 (–10 to 0); 0.03
Mean pain score on discharge (SD, n)b 23 (21, 200) 15 (17, 186) –8 (–12 to –4); 0.001
Procedure acceptable?
n = 225 n = 197
Totally 136 (60%) 152 (77%)
Generally 51 (23%) 30 (15%) 0.90 (0.84 to 0.97); 0.001c
Fairly 33 (15%) 12 (6%)
Unacceptable 5 (2%) 3 (2%)
Exposure embarrassing?
n = 224 n = 196
Extremely 5 (2%) 4 (2%) 1.45 (0.86 to 2.46); 0.24d
Moderately 17 (8%) 24 (12%)
A little 79 (35%) 35 (18%)
No 123 (55%) 133 (68%)
Recommend to a friend?
Yes/total 205/222 (92%) 190/196 (97%) 0.95 (0.91 to 1.00); 0.04

Same treatment again?
Yes/total 200/223 (90%) 186/193 (96%) 0.93 (0.88 to 0.98); 0.009
Preferred alternative treatment?
Yes/total 47/218 (22%) 39/190 (21%) 0.95 (0.65 to 1.39); 0.80

a Estimates of differences > 0 favour outpatient polypectomy, those < 0 favour inpatient polypectomy (for continuous
responses), likewise estimates of RR >1 favour outpatient polypectomy; estimates of RR < 1 favour inpatient polypectomy
(for dichotomous responses).
b VAS score. Scores range from 0 (no pain at all) to 100 (worst imaginable pain). T-test used for analysis.
c Cochran–Armitage test for trend used for analysis; totally acceptable/generally acceptable vs. fairly acceptable/
unacceptable combined categories used to calculate RR.
d Cochran–Armitage test for trend used for analysis; extremely/moderately vs. a little/no combined categories used
to calculate RR.
TABLE 20 Currently taking any additional medical treatments for bleeding symptoms in the last month
Polypectomy
Time of assessment Outpatient Inpatient RR (95% CI);a p-value
6 months 46/228 (20%) 46/209 (22%) 1.09 (0.76 to 1.57); 0.6

1 year 40/227 (18%) 38/219 (17%) 0.98 (0.66 to 1.47); 0.9
2 years 38/214 (18%) 28/195 (14%) 0.81 (0.52 to 1.27); 0.4

a Estimates of RR > 1 favour outpatient polypectomy; estimates of RR < 1 favour inpatient polypectomy.
49
SO16 7NS, UK.
TABLE 21 Currently taking any additional medical treatments for bleeding symptoms in the last month: details
Polypectomy
Outpatient Inpatient
Time of assessment Medical treatment (n = 228) (n = 209)
6 months LNG-IUS 21 (9%) 31 (15%)
Tranexamic acid 4 (2%) 6 (3%)
Mefenamic acid (Ponstan, Pfizer) 3 (1%) 3 (1%)
HRT 8 (4%) 1 (< 1%)
Combined oral contraceptive 3 (1%) 5 (2%)

®
Norethisterone (Utovlan , Pfizer) 4 (2%) 0 (–)
Depot medoxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera, Pfizer) 2 (1%) 0 (–)
Local oestrogen cream 1 (< 1%) 0 (–)
Goserelin (Zoladex®, Astra Zeneca) 1 (< 1%) 0 (–)
Missing 1 (< 1%) 1 (< 1%)

a
Total 48 47b
n = 227 n = 219
1 year LNG-IUS 19 (8%) 29 (10%)
Mefenamic acid (Ponstan, Pfizer) 4 (2%) 1 (< 1%)
HRT 10 (4%) 5 (2%)
Combined oral contraceptive 3 (1%) 2 (1%)
Norethisterone 3 (1%) 1 (< 1%)

Clomiphene 1 (< 1%) 0 (–)
Local oestrogen cream 0 (–) 1 (< 1%)

c
Total 43 41d
n = 214 n = 195
2 years LNG-IUS 24 (11%) 21 (11%)

Mefenamic acid (Ponstan, Pfizer) 1 (<1%) 0 (–)
HRT 7 (3%) 2 (1%)
Combined oral contraceptive 0 (–) 2 (1%)
Norethisterone 2 (1%) 0 (–)
Goserelin 0 (–) 1 (1%)
Missing 1 (< 1%) 1 (1%)
Total 38 28
n,number of responses.
a One patient reported taking HRT and Zoladex and one patient reported taking norethisterone and tranexamic acid.
b One patient reported taking Mirena and mefenamic acid.
c One patient taking norethisterone and tranexamic acid, one patient tranexamic acid and combined oral contraceptive,
one patient mefenamic acid and norethisterone.
d One patient reported taking norethisterone and tranexamic acid, one patient reported taking Mirena and combined oral
contraceptive, one patient Mirena and HRT.
50
In total over the 2-year follow-up period, 43/254 (17%) women in the outpatient group and 21/253 (8%)
in the inpatient group had at least one further polyp removed (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.3; p = 0.003)
(see Figure 8; note that a small number of women had more than one further removal, which explains the
slight discrepancy between total numbers). The total number of gynaecological operations other than
polyp removal over the period of follow-up was also higher in the outpatient group [61/230 (27%) vs.
36/219 (16%), RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.3; p = 0.01] (Table 22). If hysteroscopies are ignored, this difference
is still statistically significant [39/230 (17%) vs. 20/219 (9%), RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.1; p = 0.01]. All
surgery types (hysterectomy, endometrial ablation and others) were more common in the outpatient group.
General practitioner and hospital use owing to bleeding appeared similar in both groups (Table 23).
Discussion of the randomised controlled trial
Principal findings
The results of this trial demonstrate that outpatient polypectomy was non-inferior to inpatient polypectomy
for the successful alleviation of AUB when compared with our prespecified non-inferiority margin of 25%.
Polypectomy successfully treated AUB in 73% (166/228) of the women in the outpatient group, compared
with 80% (168/211) in the inpatient group (equivalent to a NNTH of ‘6’ at the lower bound of the 95% CI)
at 6 months, with no evidence of interaction of type of bleeding, location or type of polyp with treatment
allocation. This treatment success was maintained at both 12 and 24 months, with no differences noted
between outpatient and inpatient surgery at any time point. The duration and amount of bleeding were
significantly reduced following both outpatient and inpatient treatment and no differences were identified
according to treatment allocation. Similarly, a significant improvement in generic and disease-specific HRQL
was seen following polypectomy in both treatment groups, which was maintained at 12 and 24 months.
Rates of re-referral to a gynaecologist were similar between treatment groups, although the requirement
for subsequent gynaecological operative intervention, in the form of endometrial ablation or hysterectomy,
was twice as high following outpatient treatment over the 2 years’ follow-up.
Outpatient-based therapy, such as polypectomy, has been facilitated by technological advances in

instrumentation, allowing focal pathologies to be removed under direct vision. However, the assumed
convenience of avoiding hospital admission and anaesthesia may be diminished if the procedure is
infeasible or acceptable in the majority of women. This trial estimated that outpatient polypectomy was
successfully completed in four out of five women but the odds of failure to complete polyp removal
was two and a half times more likely compared with traditional inpatient treatment. This equates to a
NNTH of ‘9’; for every nine outpatient polypectomies performed, an additional one procedure will fail
compared with inpatient treatment. Patient discomfort was the main factor predisposing to failure in the
TABLE 22 Gynaecological surgery over the full period of follow-up (not polyp removal)
Polypectomy
Type of surgery Outpatient Inpatient
Hysteroscopy 22/230 (10%) 16/219 (7%)
Hysterectomy 17/230 (7%) 10/219 (5%)
Endometrial ablation 12/230 (5%) 5/219 (2%)

a
Any other 10/230 (4%) 5/219 (2%)b
Any gynaecological surgery 61/230 (27%) 36/219 (16%)

a Cyst removal (3), myomectomy (2), sterilisation (1), laparoscopy (1), D&C (1), cancer operation (unspecified) (1), vaginal
repair (1).
b Fibroid embolisation (1), ovarian cancer operation (1), sterilisation (1), D&C (1), transvaginal tape incontinence (1).
51
SO16 7NS, UK.
TABLE 23 Health service resource use and time off work in the last 6 months
Polypectomy
Health service usage, including absenteeism Outpatient Inpatient
Outpatient clinic
6 months 12/231 (5%) 8/211 (4%)

1 year 15/228 (7%) 16/219 (7%)
2 years 15/213 (7%) 13/196 (7%)
Hospital ward day case
6 months 8/231 (3%) 4/211 (2%)
1 year 8/228 (4%) 3/219 (1%)
2 years 6/214 (3%) 7/196 (4%)
Hospital overnight
6 months 0 (–) 0 (–)

1 year 2/228 (1%) 0 (–)
2 years 2/215 (1%) 2/196 (1%)
GP surgery
6 months 26/231 (11%) 23/211 (11%)
1 year 24/228 (11%) 21/219 (10%)
2 years 20/215 (9%) 17/196 (9%)
GP at home
6 months 0 (–) 1/211 (< 1%)
1 year 0 (–) 0 (–)
2 years 1/215 (< 1%) 0 (–)
Days off work
6 months 14/231 (6%) 11/211 (5%)
1 year 6/228 (3%) 5/219 (2%)
2 years 7/215 (3%) 5/196 (3%)

Hospital for any other reasons (not bleeding related)
6 months 10/231 (4%) 8/211 (4%)
1 year 19/228 (8%) 9/218 (4%)
2 years 32/215 (15%) 21/196 (11%)
Gynaecologist for any other reason (not surgery or necessarily bleeding related)
6 months 16/230 (7%) 9/210 (4%)
1 year 20/227 (9%) 19/219 (9%)

2 years 16/214 (7%) 13/195 (7%)
52
outpatient compared with the inpatient setting. Both outpatient and inpatient treatment times were short,
i.e. 10 minutes on average. Pain scores were 45 out of 100 on average during outpatient polypectomy,
levels which are similar to other commonly adopted intrauterine procedures, such as diagnostic
hysteroscopy or endometrial biopsy (M Connor, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, 2013, personal
communication). Within 1 hour of treatment, the mean pain scores had reduced to 28 out of 100 implying
that pain intensity is moderated quickly. Postoperative pain at 1 hour and on discharge from hospital
were significantly higher in the outpatient group than in the inpatient group but the small differences in
absolute mean pain scores and their low intensity level suggest that these observations are unlikely
to be of clinical significance. Outpatient polypectomy was also statistically less acceptable than inpatient
treatment. However, only 2% (5/225) of women found outpatient-based treatment unacceptable and
90% (200/223) of women were prepared to have such treatment again or recommend the outpatient
procedure. Nevertheless, with the benefit of hindsight, approximately one in five women in both
treatment groups reported a desire to have had the alternative setting for treatment.
Outpatient treatment appeared to be safe; the most common operative complication being vasovagal
fainting episodes that occurred in around 1 in 14 (7%, 17/241) women. The majority of polypectomies
were conducted hysteroscopically, i.e. polyp detachment under direct vision, but this was done significantly
more often in the outpatient group than in the inpatient treatment group (78%, 175/225 vs. 56%,
122/217, respectively). Most polyps (56%, 127/227) were retrieved under direct hysteroscopic vision
in the outpatient setting, whereas the converse was true for inpatient therapy, which used traditional
blind mechanical extraction in 66% (147/223) of cases. Intra-operative haemorrhage and trauma to the
upper genital tract was restricted to a minority of women in the inpatient treatment group. However,
four of these traumatic cases were uterine perforations, with one case requiring emergency laparotomy
to repair bowel injuries and the other resulting in a pelvic haematoma and subsequent abscess requiring
readmission and a period of hospitalisation. These two procedures were conducted blindly. Although
traditional blind mechanical instrumentation of the uterus is generally safe, the serious morbidity and
mortality that can arise from unrecognised intra-abdominal trauma using such techniques in an
anaesthetised patient is well recognised.12,13
Strengths and limitations of the study

The strengths of our trial include strict randomisation, its size, the multicentre design, the relatively low
rates of loss to follow-up, and the tailoring of assessment of outcomes to the primary complaint.
Extensive sensitivity analyses were carried out to assess the impact of missing responses and re-intervention
on the primary outcome. Some limitations of our study should be noted. These include variation in the
practice of outpatient polypectomy, with several techniques and forms of instrumentation being utilised,
although the most common approach was bipolar electrosurgery, used in 54% (124/228) of cases.
Furthermore, a ‘see and treat’ approach was adopted for outpatient polypectomy in 72% (174/242) of
cases, whereas the others were undertaken at a subsequent appointment. PP analyses and a range
of further sensitivity analyses did not change our conclusions supporting the robustness of our findings.
Furthermore, most women were successfully treated regardless of the type of bleeding complaint with no
evidence that relative effectiveness of outpatient compared with inpatient treatment varied by bleeding
subtype. Although we could examine the relative efficacy of treatment according to menopausal status,
as well as type of bleeding (HMB vs. IMB), we were unable to fulfil one of our original objectives – to
compare women with PMB according to whether they were taking HRT. In our pilot study, women with
PMB on HRT formed the largest single population subgroup. This contrasted sharply with recruitment to
the OPT Trial, for which very few women on HRT and PMB presented, thereby precluding further analysis.
This finding coincides with the decline in women taking HRT over recent years following the publication
of large cohort studies showing no clear health benefits of long-term HRT use.135
The overall effect of polypectomy on HMB did not appear to be influenced by the concomitant use of the
LNG-IUS, which was fitted immediately post polypectomy in 14% (31/229) of outpatient treatments and
19% (43/222) of inpatient treatments. The type and location of uterine polyp did not influence relative
treatment effectiveness.
53
SO16 7NS, UK.
The pragmatic design of the OPT RCT allowed for the inclusion of women presenting with all types of AUB
complaints, enhancing the generalisability of our findings. Successful alleviation of AUB symptoms had
to be defined differently according to one of the three categories of AUB: HMB, IMB and PMB. We used
the woman’s own assessment of bleeding symptoms, using a dichotomous outcome measure, to establish
if the treatment had been successful. We believe that the simplicity of this approach was understandable
to women and clinically relevant, but the validity of our chosen outcome has not been tested. Even if
women interpret the primary outcome questions differently, the internal validity (outpatient vs. inpatient)
should not have been affected. It was reassuring to note that the secondary outcome Likert scale
responses for ‘Compared with before your treatment, would you say your bleeding is? (much better to
worse)’ were almost identical to the primary outcome measure. In addition, the primary bleeding outcome
appeared to be related to an improvement in generic HRQL data measured using EQ-5D scores
after treatment.
We also sanctioned the use of any described technique for effecting uterine polypectomy in either setting,
but inevitably this led to an imbalance between groups according to treatment method. The outpatient
approach to polypectomy was conducted under direct vision using varying technologies in the majority
of women, whereas general anaesthesia permitted the use of larger, more traumatic instrumentation and
adoption of ‘blind’ techniques in most women. Thus, the technique used may have affected the success
of treatment rather than setting alone. However, this is unlikely because polypectomy is a simple
procedure and the presumed mechanism of treatment efficacy upon AUB symptoms relates to their
removal, however achieved. The study was not powered to determine whether a particular surgical
method was more feasible, safe, effective or acceptable.
Implications for practice

Outpatient polyp treatment appears to be safe, feasible, acceptable and effective for the treatment
of HMB, IMB and PMB. Outpatient uterine polypectomy should be made routinely available within the NHS
in light of these favourable findings and the high disease burden associated with AUB and uterine polyps.
Diagnostic OPH facilities are widely available within most NHS hospitals. Diagnostic OPH is familiar to many
gynaecologists but additional training would be necessary to become competent in therapeutic procedures
such as polypectomy. However, the additional costs and resources required for such training are uncertain.
At present only the minority of NHS hospitals are able to provide operative OPH. The ambulatory setting
should not be restricted to hospital-based practice, but the establishment of appropriately equipped and
staffed community-based services should be explored.
The safety and convenience of outpatient treatment and the equivalent effectiveness in ameliorating AUB
symptoms should be weighed against the increased likelihood of failure to complete the procedure,
perioperative pain experience and reduced acceptability in the conscious outpatient compared with the
anaesthetised inpatient. Women should be made aware of the risk of failure to completely remove
the uterine polyp in one in every five outpatient treatments and, as a result, the possible necessity for
subsequent inpatient treatment. They should be informed that outpatient intervention is associated with
pain, albeit of generally moderate intensity and for a short duration of time. In addition, women should
be cognisant of the trend towards reduced acceptability of the overall procedure compared with inpatient
approaches, but that at least 8 out of 10 women find the outpatient procedure to be totally or generally
acceptable. The thorough counselling of women in this way may present some challenges given that the
majority of units effect immediate treatment following polyp diagnosis at hysteroscopy, the so-called
‘see and treat’ approach to management. Current practices for obtaining informed consent should be
reviewed and consideration given to providing contemporary written material to women prior to their
appointment and verbal information during the pre-hysteroscopy consultation.
54
Conclusion
We believe that evaluating all types of AUB within our trial has enhanced the generalisability of our findings.
However, at present, outpatient uterine polypectomy, with or without the use of local anaesthetic, is not
widely available within the NHS and many other health-care systems. Despite this caveat, ‘ambulatory’,
‘outpatient’ or ‘office’-based diagnostic and therapeutic interventions are becoming increasingly prevalent,
driven by advances in technology and a desire to enhance recovery. Thus, this trial is timely, novel and
relevant to contemporary clinical practice.
Our trial has demonstrated comparable clinical effectiveness of outpatient polypectomy in alleviating
gynaecological bleeding complaints at 6, 12 and 24 months. However, despite the convenience and
apparent safety of the outpatient treatment setting there were more technical failures reflecting the
increased complexity of the procedures in a conscious outpatient compared with an anaesthetised inpatient.
The clinical significance of the observations of increased postoperative pain and reduced patient acceptability
associated with outpatient compared with inpatient treatment may be inconsequential, given the high overall
levels of patient acceptability and relatively low postoperative pain intensity for outpatient polypectomy.
In light of the non-inferiority of outpatient polypectomy and its overall safety, feasibility and acceptability,
therapeutic outpatient hysteroscopic services should be established, providing women with a choice
of treatment setting. Women should be informed of the relative advantages and disadvantages of either
treatment approach, so that they can make an informed decision.
55
SO16 7NS, UK.
Chapter 4 Results of the preference study
Recruitment
Of the 952 women with AUB who were willing to participate in the treatment preference study and be
assessed for eligibility by hysteroscopy, 399 (42%) from 31 UK centres were recruited between April 2008
and July 2011 (Table 24 and Figure 18). Of the 399 women willing to participate, 324 (81%) expressed a
preference for outpatient treatment (Figure 19). The most common reason for ineligibility was no polyp
being present in 72% of the 553 not recruited. Six per cent (32/553) of the ineligible women had polyps
that were considered by the hysteroscopist to be infeasible to remove in an outpatient setting (Figure 20).
Patients and follow-up
Baseline characteristics of the patients were similar between the two groups (Table 25), with no statistically
significant difference seen. For 48% (192/399) of those agreeing to be followed up, the initial complaint
was PMB, 25% (98/399) had HMB and the remaining participants had IMB [27% (109/399]. This and the
other demographics were similar to those women who were randomised (see Chapter 3, Patients and
follow-up) apart from a slightly older overall population here (the average age was 2.3 years more, 95% CI
0.9 to 3.7; p = 0.001).
In the outpatient group 302 of 324 (93%) women received their treatment preference compared with
68 of 399 (91%) in the inpatient group (see Figure 20). In those women agreeing to take part and with a
preference for outpatient polypectomy, 63% [196/312 (87 missing responses)] were to undergo immediate
removal following diagnosis (‘see and treat’), with the remaining women returning for treatment at a later
date. The median time from randomisation to treatment in the inpatient group was 31 days (IQR 7–55). In
the outpatient group this was 0 days (IQR 0–27).
Completed primary outcome responses were available from 338 of 399 (85%) of participants at 6 months
(see Figure 20).
Operative results
Table 26 details the operative details. The pattern of results was similar to those reported in the RCT
(see Table 13). Compared with inpatient treatment, outpatient surgery necessitated less use of vaginal
instrumentation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.66; p < 0.001) and dilatation of the cervix (RR 0.45, 95% CI
0.37 to 0.55; p < 0.001). Removal of polyps under direct hysteroscopic vision was significantly more
common (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8; p < 0.001) in the outpatient surgery setting, and electrosurgery was
the most popular method of detaching polyps, being used in over half of all outpatient cases (RR 1.5,
95% CI 1.0 to 2.0; p = 0.02). Similarly, hysteroscopic retrieval of polyp specimen(s) from the uterine cavity
was the most common technique in the outpatient setting, whereas blind mechanical extraction was
preferred in the inpatient group (RR 2.6, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.9; p < 0.001).
Partial or failed removals occurred in 30 of 312 (10%) of the outpatient group compared with 5/73 (7%)
in the inpatient group (RR 1.4, 95% CI 0.6 to 3.5; p = 0.5). The overall level of failures was lower in
the preference study than for those randomised [odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.99; p = 0.05]
but there was no evidence of treatment group interaction with method of study entry (p = 0.3). As with
the randomised cohort, the most common reason for incomplete removal in the outpatient group was
patient discomfort. Of the failed outpatient procedures (n = 30), nine (30%) were immediately scheduled
57
SO16 7NS, UK.
RESULTS OF THE PREFERENCE STUDY
TABLE 24 Recruitment by centre
Birmingham Women’s Hospital 129 (32)
Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield 78 (20)
Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle 37 (9)
Barnsley District General Hospital 29 (7)
St Mary’s Hospital, London 16 (4)
Kidderminster General Hospital 13 (3)

Ormskirk & District General Hospital 11 (3)
Castle Hill Hospital, East Riding 10 (3)
Countess of Chester Hospital 9 (2)
Liverpool Women’s Hospital 9 (2)
Worcestershire Royal Hospital 7 (2)
Queen Charlotte’s & Chelsea Hospital 6 (2)
Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh 6 (2)

New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton 5 (1)
Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital 5 (1)
Queens Hospital, Romford 4 (1)
Taunton & Somerset Hospital 4 (1)
Bradford Royal Infirmary 3 (1)
Newham General Hospital 3 (1)
Bishop Auckland General Hospital 2 (1)

Blackpool Victoria Hospital 2 (1)
Royal Blackburn Hospital 2 (1)
University Hospital of North Staffordshire 2 (1)
Birmingham Heartlands Hospital 1 (< 1)
Chelsea & Westminster Hospital 1 (< 1)
City Hospital, Birmingham 1 (< 1)
Sandwell General Hospital 1 (< 1)

Shotley Bridge Hospital, County Durham 1 (< 1)
Solihull Hospital 1 (< 1)
Whiston Hospital, Merseyside 1 (< 1)
Total 399
58
30 600
25 500
20 400
Cumulative total
Monthly total
Monthly total
15 300
Cumulative
10 200
5 100
0 0
08
08
09
09
09
10
10
10
11
11
11
00
00
01
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
r2
r2
r2
il
ly
il
ly
il
ly
il
ly
be
be
be
ar
ar
ar
pr
pr
pr
pr
Ju
Ju
Ju
Ju
nu
nu
nu
A
A
ct
ct
ct
Ja
Ja
Ja
O
FIGURE 18 Accrual to preference study.
600
500
Number allocated to treatment
400
253
75
300 Inpatient
Outpatient
200
324
254
100
0
Randomised Preference
FIGURE 19 Allocated treatment according to randomisation and preference.
59
SO16 7NS, UK.
952 with a strong preference for 553 did not take part
either treatment and assessed for • 426 (77%) no benign polyps
eligibility by hysteroscopy • 35 (6%) not feasible to remove polyps
in an outpatient setting
• 32 (6%) hysteroscopy not feasible
• 14 (3%) possible malignant lesion
• 12 (2%) need for other uterine
surgical intervention
• 5 (1%) consent withdrawn
399 women agreed to be • 4 (1%) hysterectomy required
in the preference study • 3 (1%) non-surgical treatment required
• 1 (<1%) no abnormal uterine bleeding
• 21 (4%) missing information
324 (81%) had a preference for 75 (19%) had a preference for

outpatient polypectomy inpatient polypectomy
• 302 (93%) received their • 68 (91%) received their preference
preference (local or no anaesthetic) (general or regional anaesthetic)
• 11 (3%) received inpatient • 5 (7%) received outpatient
polypectomy (general or polypectomy (local or
regional anaesthetic) no anaesthetic)
• 11 (3%) did not have operation • 2 (3%) did not have operation
41 exited study 20 exited study

• 35 lost to follow-up • 18 lost to follow-up
• 6 contacted and • 2 contacted and
did not wish to did not wish to
complete any more complete any more
follow-up forms follow-up forms
283 available for analysis of the 55 available for analysis of

primary outcome at 6 months primary outcome at 6 months
• 22 reoperations (7%), 9 of which • 3 reoperations (4%), none of
were planned at the time of which were planned at the time
original operation (8 as an of original operation (1 as an
inpatient, 14 as an outpatient) inpatient, 2 as an outpatient)
FIGURE 20 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram for preference study.
60
TABLE 25 Baseline characteristics
Polypectomy
Baseline characteristic Outpatient (n = 324) Inpatient (n = 75) p-value
Age, years: mean (SD) 53 (11) 51 (12) 0.2
Ethnicity
White 263 (91%) 54 (93%)
Asian 12 (4%) 2 (3%)
Black 8 (3%) 1 (2%) > 0.9
Other 6 (2%) 1 (2%)
Not given/not known 35 17
Predominant bleeding complaint at randomisation
Postmenopausala 155 (48%) 37 (49%)
Heavy menstrualb 75 (23%) 23 (31%) 0.2

Intermenstrualc 94 (29%) 15 (20%)
Site of uterine polyp
Fundal 118 (36%) 25 (33%) 0.6
Non-fundal 206 (64%) 50 (67%)
Type of uterine polyp
Glandular 229 (71%) 53 (71%) > 0.9
Fibrous 95 (29%) 22 (29%)

No. of polyps
1 233 (72%) 58 (77%)
2 62 (19%) 11 (15%) 0.6
≥3 29 (9%) 6 (8%)
Other benign pathology
None 318 (98%) 74 (99%)
SMF/adhesion/septum – –
Adhesion/septum – – 0.8
SMF 5 (2%) 1 (1%)
Septum 1 (< 1%) –

a Of these women, 16 (10%) and 3 (8%) were currently taking a continuous combined ‘no bleed’ HRT in the outpatient
and inpatient groups, respectively.
b Includes one postmenopausal woman (1%) on a sequential HRT (outpatient group).
c Includes two postmenopausal women (2%) on a sequential HRT (outpatient group).
Of these women, 15 (5%) and 4 (5%) had a history of taking tamoxifen in the outpatient and inpatient groups,
respectively, (four and one currently taking the therapy).
61
SO16 7NS, UK.
TABLE 26 Operative details
Polypectomy
Mean difference or RR
Operative details Outpatient Inpatient (95% CI);a p-value
Largest polyp size, cm: median (IQR), n 1.1 (0.8–2.0), 286 1.0 (0.8–2.0), 57 0.0 (–0.2 to 0.2); > 0.9
Need for cervical dilatation = yes 105/303 (35%) 52/67 (78%) 0.45 (0.37 to 0.55); < 0.001
Use of vaginal speculum = yes 152/301 (50%) 53/60 (88%) 0.57 (0.49 to 0.66); < 0.001
Use of local anaesthetic = yes 132/313 (42%) 2/73 (3%) 15.4 (3.9 to 60.8); < 0.001
Hysteroscopic removal = yes (vs. blind) 246/299 (82%) 36/64 (56%) 1.5 (1.2 to 1.8); < 0.001
Method used to detach
n = 287 n = 65 1.5 (1.0 to 2.0);b 0.02
Electrode 155 (54%) 24 (37%)
Mechanical 102 (36%) 35 (54%)

Method of retrieval
n = 292 n = 62
Hysteroscopic 193 (66%) 16 (26%) 2.6 (1.7 to 3.9);c < 0.001
Mechanical 69 (24%) 43 (69%)
Combination 11 (4%) –
None 19 (7%) 3 (5%)
Time taken for polypectomy, minutes: 10 (5–15), 290 10 (7–15), 52 –1.5 (3.0 to 0.0); 0.3
median (IQR), n
Time in outpatient room/theatre, minutes: 30 (20–35), 285 33 (25–45), 53 –6.0 (–10.0 to –2.0); 0.003
median (IQR), n
Removal success
n = 312 n = 73
Complete 282 (90%) 68 (93%)
Partiald 22 (7%) 3 (4%) 1.4 (0.6 to 3.5);e 0.5

Failedd 8 (3%) 2 (3%)
a Mean difference of < 0 indicates lower with outpatient group; similarly RR < 1 is lower with outpatient group.
For skewed variables presented with medians, differences in location between groups were calculated using
Hodges–Lehmann estimates and Moses’ CIs.
b RR calculated from ‘electrode’ vs. any other category.
c RR calculated from ‘hysteroscopic’ vs. any other category.
d Nine (3%) partial or failed patients in the outpatient group and none in the inpatient group were immediately scheduled
for reoperation. Six of these were scheduled to be an inpatient. Partial or failed reasons in the outpatient group
(percentages given of the total number, 312): patient discomfort (9, 3%), unable to locate blindly (5, 2%), unable
to access under vision (4, 1%), polyp too large (3, 1%), failed hysteroscopy (1, < 1%), base cut but unable to remove
(1, < 1%), wide base unable to fully resect (1, < 1%), vasovagal episode (1, < 1%), difficult access to base of polyp
(1, < 1%), missing reason (4, 1%). Partial or failed reasons in the inpatient group (percentages given of the total
number, 73): unable to access under vision (1, 1%), unable to locate blindly (1, 1%), deep SMF polyp (1, 1%), too
broad base (1, 1%), missing reason (1, 1%).
e RR calculated from ‘partial’ or ‘failed’ vs. complete.
62
for subsequent reoperation, usually as an inpatient procedure (6/9, 67%). The most common perioperative
complications in the outpatient group were induced vasovagal reactions, affecting 6% of the cohort,
a similar proportion to the 7% of such episodes observed in the RCT. No uterine perforations occurred
in either treatment group (Table 27).
TABLE 27 Operative and postoperative complications including further treatments/procedures given
Polypectomy
Complications and further treatment Outpatient Inpatient
Operative complications
n = 302 n = 67
Vasovagal episode 17 (6%) –
Patient discomfort 3 (1%) –
Cervical trauma 1 (< 1%) 1 (1%)
Uterine perforation – –
Other a
1 (< 1%) –
Postoperative complications
n = 301 n = 67
Vomiting 3 (1%) 2 (3%)
Severe pain – 2 (3%)
Further treatment/procedure given
n = 292 n = 64
Mirena IUS 42 (14%) 8 (13%)
Tranexamic acid 9 (3%) –

Progestogens 3 (1%) –
Endometrial destruction 2 (1%) –
Local oestrogen cream 2 (1%) –
Mefenamic acid (Ponstan, Pfizer) 1 (< 1%) 1 (2%)
Contraceptive pill 1 (< 1%) –
Missing treatment name 2 (1%) 1 (2%)

a Outpatient polypectomy other complications: nausea (1).
63
SO16 7NS, UK.
Serious adverse events
No treatment-related SAEs were seen. Other operative and postoperative complications not considered
SAEs are given in Table 26.
Treatment success
A successful response to surgery was reported in 82% of women at 6 months in both the outpatient
group and inpatient polypectomy group (45/55 vs. 231/28, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; p = 0.9).
The overall level of success was higher in the preference study than for those randomised (OR 1.4,
95% CI 1.0 to 2.0; p = 0.06), but there was no evidence of treatment group interaction with method
of study entry (p = 0.4).
Major secondary outcomes
Responses from the Likert scale question on current bleeding compared with baseline bleeding yielded
similar results to the treatment success outcome (Table 28).
Condition-specific and bleeding scores were significantly improved from baseline to 6 months in both
groups with no differences between them (Table 29). Generic quality of life was significantly improved
in the outpatient group, but not so in the inpatient group. However, we cannot rule out this being due
to the small sample size. There was no difference between groups in these quality-of-life parameters.
Procedure acceptability
Mean pain scores 1 hour following the procedure and upon discharge were higher in the outpatient
polypectomy group compared with the inpatient group (Table 30). The proportions of women responding
positively or negatively to the other acceptability questions appeared similar to those in the RCT, but no
significant differences were seen here; we cannot rule out this being due to unknown confounding factors
and the small size of sample.
TABLE 28 Likert response
Polypectomy
Compared with before your treatment, would you say your bleeding is: Outpatient polypectomy Inpatient
Much better 213 (79%) 43 (80%)

Same 24 (9%) 3 (6%)
Worse 10 (4%) 2 (4%)
Total 271 54
Test for trend (p-value) 0.7
RR (95% CI);a p-value 0.96 (0.88 to 1.06); 0.5
Adjusted RR (95% CI); p-value Not possible to compute

polypectomy; estimates of RR < 1 favour inpatient polypectomy.
64
TABLE 29 Results of secondary outcome measure: scores
Polypectomy, mean (SD, n)

Patient-reported Difference (95% CI);a Adjusted differenceb
outcome measures Outpatient Inpatient p-value (95% CI); p-value
MMASc
Baseline 63 (26, 163) 61 (28, 37)

6 months 77 (25, 135)d 79 (25, 25)d –3 (–12 to 7); 0.55 –4 (–13 to 6); 0.45
e
EuroQol EQ-5D
Baseline 0.79 (0.26, 312) 0.72 (0.30, 71)
6 months 0.82 (0.25, 289)d 0.81 (0.30, 56) 0.00 (–0.07 to 0.06); 0.88 0.00 (–0.07 to 0.06); 0.91
EuroQol health thermometerf
Baseline 78 (18, 305) 75 (21, 71)
6 months 78 (19, 291) 79 (20, 57) –2 (–7 to 3); 0.34 –3 (–8 to 2); 0.28
g
Baseline 39 (26, 74) 38 (26, 23)
6 months 30 (28, 65) d

18 (19, 16)d –13 (–27 to 2); 0.09 –13 (–28 to 2); 0.09
h
Bleeding amount VAS
Baseline 59 (28, 75) 58 (26, 23)
6 months 32 (28, 68)d 26 (27, 16)d –4 (–19 to 11); 0.61 –3 (–19 to 12); 0.67
a Difference between groups at each time point adjusted for baseline score. Estimates of differences > 0 favour outpatient
polypectomy, those < 0 favour inpatient polypectomy.
b For variables used as minimisation procedure in RCT (see Chapter 2, Objectives, objective 5).
c MMAS questionnaire. Scores range from 0 (severely affected) to 100 (not affected). Restricted to those with HMB
and IMB only.
d The p-value is < 0.05 when compared with baseline score within group (by paired t-test).
e HRQL questionnaire. Scores range from –0.59 (health state worse than death) to 1.0 (perfect health state).
f HRQL questionnaire. Scores range 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 1.0 (best imaginable health state).
g VAS score. Scores range from 0 (no days of bleeding in the last month) to 100 (bleeding every day in the last month).
h VAS score. Scores range from 0 (no bleeding in the last month) to 100 (heaviest imaginable bleeding in the last month).
65
SO16 7NS, UK.
TABLE 30 Operation acceptability: patient responses
Polypectomy
Patient experience Difference or RR Adjusted difference or
and preference Outpatient Inpatient (95% CI);a p-value RRb (95% CI); p-value
Mean pain score during 42 (26, 296) – – –

procedure (SD, n)c
Mean pain score 1 hour 27 (24, 247) 20 (24, 60) –7 (–14 to 0); 0.04 –7 (–13 to 0); 0.05
following procedure (SD, n)c
Mean pain score on 22 (21, 276) 13 (18, 57) –9 (–15 to –3); 0.003 –9 (–15 to –3); 0.003
discharge (SD, n)c
Procedure acceptable?
n = 299 n = 64
Totally 194 (65%) 52 (81%)
Generally 48 (16%) 9 (14%) 0.85 (0.79 to 0.92); 0.003d Not possible to compute
Fairly 50 (17%) 3 (5%)
Unacceptable 7 (2%) 0 (–)
Exposure embarrassing?
n = 302 n = 60 1.29 (0.66 to 2.55); 0.45e 1.28 (0.65 to 2.50); 0.45e

Extremely 5 (2%) 2 (3%)
Moderately 30 (10%) 7 (12%)
A little 90 (30%) 8 (13%)
No 177 (59%) 43 (72%)
Yes/total 282/302 (93%) 62/64 (97%) 0.96 (0.91 to 1.02); 0.28 Not possible to compute

Yes/total 283/300 (94%) 62/63 (98%) 0.96 (0.92 to 1.00); 0.18 Not possible to compute
Yes/total 36/299 (12%) 10/63 (16%) 1.32 (0.69 to 2.51); 0.41 1.36 (0.72 to 2.56); 0.35
a Estimates of differences > 0 favour outpatient polypectomy, those < 0 favour inpatient polypectomy (for continuous
responses), likewise estimates of RR > 1 favour outpatient polypectomy, those RR < 1 favour inpatient polypectomy
(for dichotomous responses).
b For variables used as minimisation procedure in RCT (see Chapter 2, Objectives, objective no. 5).
c VAS score. Scores range from 0 (no pain at all) to 100 (worst imaginable pain). The t-test used for analysis.
d Cochran–Armitage test for trend used for analysis; totally acceptable/generally acceptable vs. fairly acceptable/
e Cochran–Armitage test for trend used for analysis; extremely/moderately vs. a little/no combined categories used
to calculate RR.
66
Other outcomes
Similar numbers of women reported taking additional medical treatments for their bleeding during
the 6 months of follow-up, with 13% (38/291) and 10% (6/58) using the LNG-IUS in the outpatient and
inpatient groups, respectively (Table 31).
In total, within the 6-month follow-up period, 22 women in the outpatient group (7%) and three in
the inpatient group (4%) had at least one further polyp removed (RR 1.7, 95% CI 0.5 to 5.5; p = 0.5)
(see Figure 13). These figures appeared similar to the RCT. The total number of women undergoing
operations other than polyp removal was higher with outpatient treatment group (similar to the RCT) but
this difference was not statistically significant (RR 1.8, 95% CI 0.6 to 5.7; p = 0.3) (Table 32). Family
practitioner and hospital use owing to bleeding also appeared similar (Table 33).
TABLE 31 Currently taking any additional medical treatments for AUB in the last month: details
Polypectomy
Medical treatment Outpatient (n = 291) Inpatient (n = 58)
Mirena 38 (13%) 6 (10%)

Mefenamic acid (Ponstan, Pfizer) 5 (2%) 3 (5%)
HRT 1 (< 1%) 1 (2%)
Progestogens 1 (< 1%) –
Norethisterone (Utovlan®, Pfizer) – 1 (2%)
Local oestrogen cream – 1 (2%)
Thyroxine – 1 (2%)
‘Natural’ progesterone cream 1 (< 1%) –

Total no. of treatments 53 16
Total no. of women 53 14a

a One patient reported taking Mirena, tranexamic acid and mefenamic acid.
TABLE 32 Gynaecological surgery over the full period of follow-up (not polyp removal)
Polypectomy
Type of surgery Outpatient Inpatient
Hysteroscopy 9/293 (3%) 2/58 (3%)

Hysterectomy 9/293 (3%) 1/58 (2%)
Endometrial ablation 3/293 (1%) 0 (–)
Any other 6/293 (2%)a 0 (–)
Any gynaecological surgery 27/293 (9%) 3/58 (5%)

a Cyst removal (5), ovary removal (1), sterilisation (1).
67
SO16 7NS, UK.
TABLE 33 Health service resource use and time off work in the last 6 months
Polypectomy
Resource use Outpatient Inpatient
Outpatient clinic due to bleeding 19/292 (7%) 4/58 (7%)
Hospital ward day case due to bleeding 3/293 (1%) 2/58 (3%)
Hospital overnight due to bleeding 1/293 (< 1%) 0 (–)
GP surgery due to bleeding 31/293 (11%) 7/58 (12%)
GP at home due to bleeding 0 (–) 0 (–)
Days off work due to bleeding 11/293 (4%) 1/58 (2%)
Hospital for any other reasons (not bleeding related) 18/292 (6%) 1/58 (2%)
Gynaecologist for any other reason 22/291 (8%) 3/58 (5%)

(not surgery or necessarily bleeding related)
Discussion of the preference study
Principal findings
Forty-four per cent of the 906 women agreeing to participate in the OPT study expressed a strong
preference for a particular treatment setting and were unwilling to be randomised. Of these women,
81% (324/399) expressed a preference for outpatient treatment. The results of the preference study
demonstrate that there was no difference between outpatient and inpatient polypectomy for the successful
alleviation of AUB at 6 months. Over 80% of women reported successful symptomatic treatment regardless
of the type of AUB. The duration and amount of bleeding were significantly reduced following both
outpatient and inpatient treatment, and no differences were identified according to treatment preference.
Similarly, a significant improvement in generic and disease-specific HRQL was seen following polypectomy
in both treatment groups. Rates of re-referral to a gynaecologist were similar between treatment groups,
as was the need for further medical or gynaecological operative intervention.
The preference study estimated that outpatient polypectomy was successfully completed in 90% (282/312)
of women and did not demonstrate any increased likelihood of failure. However, this is likely to be due
to unknown confounders and the small sample size because an increased likelihood of failure with
outpatient polypectomy was seen in the RCT. Possible explanations for this are the selection of more
motivated women and technically less challenging polyps to remove in the outpatient setting. It is also
important to note that the power to detect a difference between groups is much smaller in the preference
study than in the RCT because the groups are unequal; the inpatient group in the preference study being
only 30% of the size of the corresponding group in the RCT. Both outpatient and inpatient treatment
times were short, with a mean treatment time of 10 minutes in both groups. Perioperative pain scores
for outpatient treatment were similar in the preference study to those observed in the RCT. As with
the RCT, mean pain scores at 1 hour following the procedure and upon discharge had diminished but
were higher in the outpatient polypectomy group than in the inpatient group, albeit differences were small
at low levels of mean pain intensity. Consistent with observations from the RCT, 2% (7/299) of women
found outpatient-based treatment to be unacceptable and there was a significant trend towards reduced
acceptability with outpatient as opposed to inpatient therapy. However, no differences were observed
between groups in the proportion of women who would recommend the procedure to a friend, undergo
the same treatment again or have preferred an alternative treatment (again, we cannot rule out this being
due to the small sample size).
Outpatient treatment appeared to be safe and in keeping with findings from the RCT; the most common
operative complication was self-limiting vasovagal fainting episodes, which occurred in around 1 in
68
18 (6%, 17/302) women. The majority of polypectomies were conducted hysteroscopically, i.e. polyp
detachment under direct vision, but, as observed in the randomised study, this was done significantly more
often in the outpatient group than in the inpatient treatment preference group [82% (246/299) vs. 56%
(36/64), respectively). Most polyps were retrieved under direct hysteroscopic vision in the outpatient
setting, whereas the converse was true for inpatient therapy, which used traditional blind mechanical
extraction in 69% (43/63) of cases.

The baseline characteristics of participants – type of bleeding, site, number and type of polyp – were
similar to the RCT, apart from a slightly older population. The strengths of our preference study include
its size, the multicentre design, the inclusion of participants who were ethnically representative of the UK
population, the relatively low rates of loss to follow-up, and the tailoring of assessment of outcomes
to the primary complaint. Selection bias inherent in the observational design precludes reliable comparison
between treatment groups in contrast with the RCT; however, our analysis did make statistical adjustment
for the obvious confounding factors (type of bleeding, site and type of polyp). In contrast with the RCT,
failure of complete polyp removal was no different between treatment settings. The overall level of failure
over both groups was lower. This finding may reflect the selection of more favourable, better motivated
women and technically ‘less challenging’ polyps to surgically remove as an outpatient. There remained
a trend towards reduced acceptability with outpatient treatment despite women exerting a preference
for this setting, although other measures of acceptability were non-significant in contrast with the RCT,
but this may reflect the smaller sample or other unknown confounders. The 4 : 1 preference for outpatient
over inpatient resulted in a smaller inpatient cohort for comparison and, as a result, estimates in this group
of the study are imprecise. Additional limitations of our preference study include variation in the practice
of outpatient polypectomy and a small number of participants failing to get their chosen treatment.

Outpatient polyp treatment appears to be safe, feasible, acceptable and effective for the treatment
of HMB, IMB and PMB in women expressing a preference for such treatment. At present most NHS
hospitals are unable to provide operative OPH. However, our study has shown that, where such services
exist, and women are offered a choice, most recognise the potential benefits of outpatient treatment.
Immediate ‘see and treat’ polypectomy was offered in 63% (196/312) of outpatient treatments. Thus,
there is evidence on both clinical and patient preference grounds, to support prioritising the provision
of ambulatory gynaecology services, such as outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy within NHS
hospital- and community-based environments. When providing women with a choice for treatment of
this common condition, it is imperative that they should be informed that the experience of outpatient
intervention could be associated with more pain and reduced acceptability than scheduled inpatient
approaches to treatment under general anaesthesia. This information should be tempered by the finding
that at least 8 out of 10 women find the outpatient procedure to be totally or generally acceptable.
Although this preference study did not demonstrate any difference between technical treatment failures,
this is likely to reflect the influence of selection bias and women should be informed of the increased risk
of failure, as observed in the RCT, when making their decision as regards treatment setting.
Conclusions
This observational study has shown that the majority of women expressing a treatment preference choose
to have outpatient treatment of uterine polyps associated with AUB symptoms. Although the data derived
from this observational study are subject to selection bias, the clinical outcomes for all categories of AUB
are in keeping with the higher-quality data obtained from the parallel RCT. The current situation of limited
and eclectic provision of outpatient or ‘ambulatory’ gynaecological therapeutic gynaecological services
for AUB is untenable and needs urgently addressing, based upon the findings of the OPT project. The
preferences expressed by women in this study and the current patchy provision of such services imply that
within most NHS hospitals women are being denied a choice of treatment setting. Consequently, many
women are being subjected to the inconvenience and greater burden of inpatient hospital treatment,
which if offered an alternative outpatient treatment option they could avoid.
69
SO16 7NS, UK.
Chapter 5 Economic analysis of the randomised

controlled trial
Introduction
This chapter reports the economic evaluation carried out alongside the OPT Trial. The primary objective
of the study was to determine whether outpatient removal of uterine polyps was non-inferior to inpatient
polypectomy, which is the standard treatment offered by the NHS. The primary end point was
patient-reported improvement in bleeding symptoms at 6 and 12 months.
The aim of this economic evaluation was to determine the cost-effectiveness of OPT compared with
standard inpatient treatment for endometrial polypectomy. For the purpose of this evaluation, we
compared individuals who were randomised to receive inpatient polypectomy with those who were
randomised to treatment in the outpatient department. Patients who had a strong preference for a given
treatment setting (i.e. either outpatient or inpatient) were followed up in the preference cohort of the trial.
Data from the preference cohort were not included in the economic analysis.
The base-case economic evaluation adopted the perspective of the NHS and took the form of
cost-effectiveness and cost–utility analyses (CUAs). Costs were explored from the societal perspective
as a part of the sensitivity analyses. The outcomes of interest were patient self-assessment of
treatment success at 6 and 12 months, respectively, for the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and
quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained at 1 year for the CUA. The reporting of this analysis follows the
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).136
Methods
All analyses were carried out using SAS 9.2, Stata 12® (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) and
Microsoft Excel 2007® (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). The costs and outcome measures
that were incorporated into this economic analysis were collected prospectively during the OPT Trial using
forms filled in at the time of polyp treatment and at discharge postoperatively. In addition, in order to
explore the societal perspective on costs, the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the patients when
attending for appointments and private time costs, including loss of time from work, were also collected
using a separate questionnaire that was administered to the patients at randomisation and again on the
day of procedure (if these were not on the same day).
Costs
All costs in the analysis are in UK pounds (£), based on 2011–12 values.137 An a priori decision was
made to use two separate methods to estimate the costs in this analysis. The first method was to use
the published standard sources of costs for NHS procedures [NHS reference costs 2011–12138 and Personal
Social Services Resource Unit (PSSRU) Costs 2012],137 which was preferred for the base-case analysis as it
ensured that the results would be generalisable to all centres in the UK. The second method was to
estimate the costs of inpatient and outpatient polypectomy by estimating the costs of the individual
components of these procedures (bottom-up costing). These costs were used in a sensitivity analysis to
ensure not only the generalisability of the results to centres outside the UK, but also to ensure that the
reference costs used in the base case were representative of the ‘real world’ costs of these procedures.
Given that there was significant heterogeneity in the types of procedures carried out and in the range of
equipment used (see Appendix 16), we estimated resource use and costs for these procedures as carried
71
SO16 7NS, UK.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL
out at the Birmingham Women’s Hospital (shown in Appendices 20–22). Health and Community Health
Services (HCHS) pay and price indices were used to inflate costs, where appropriate.137
Unit costs (Table 34) were attached to the cumulative resource use in each treatment group in order
to calculate costs in both arms of the trial. Outpatient and inpatient polypectomy costs were estimated as
per the NHS reference costs138 (Tables 35 and 36). All patients recruited into the trial were assessed in an
outpatient clinic and underwent an OPH at the clinic where the uterine polyps were diagnosed. Although
most of the patients randomised to an outpatient procedure were treated on their initial visit, 28%
were scheduled to attend their treatment in a second clinic. All patients randomised to inpatient were
pre-assessed in a nurse-led clinic to ensure that they were suitable to receive general anaesthesia before
being scheduled for their day-case inpatient procedure.
TABLE 34 Admission and procedure costsa
Resource Unit cost (£) Details
Pre-assessment clinic 118 Non-consultant led; gynaecological clinic; first attendance; face to face
Outpatient clinic 146 Gynaecology consultant led; first appointment, not admitted
attendance
GP clinic appointment 43 PSSRU unit costs 2011–12137
Day-case admission cost 673 Unit price; day-case admissionb
Cost per day/night 502 Regular day/night admissionb

admission
HDU admission 868 Adult critical care admission; one organ supported
Cost of outpatient 188 Outpatient procedure costb

procedure
OPH 197 Outpatient procedure; diagnostic hysteroscopy; currency code: MA21Z
Total abdominal 3288 Elective inpatient upper genital tract procedure with no complications;
hysterectomy currency code: MA07D
Excess bed stay after 353 Excess bed stay for procedures under MA07D
hysterectomy
Blood transfusion 125 NHS Blood and Transplant summer 2011 prices
HDU, high-dependency unit.
a All costs derived from NHS reference costs 2011–12.138
b Indicative costs for Resection or Ablation Procedures for Intra-uterine Lesions (currency code MA12Z).
TABLE 35 Outpatient polypectomy costa
Resource Cost (£) Detailsb
Initial outpatient 146 Consultant gynaecologist-led face-to-face clinic; non-admitted

clinic
Hysteroscopy 197 Initial OPH for diagnosis of polyps; MA21Z
Follow-up outpatient 112 Gynaecology: follow-up appointment consultant led; face to face;
clinic no admission
Outpatient polypectomy 188 Outpatient procedure; MA12Z

procedure
Total cost 643

a Where patients are seen and treated in the same clinic, the costs will be £531 (i.e. excluding follow-up clinic costs).
b All costs are derived from the NHS reference costs 2011–12.138
72
TABLE 36 Inpatient polypectomy cost
Resource Cost (£) Detailsa
Initial outpatient clinic 146 Consultant gynaecologist-led, face-to-face clinic; non-admitted
Hysteroscopy 197 Initial OPH for diagnosis of polyps; MA21Z
Preoperative assessment clinic 118 Gynaecology: first appointment non-consultant led; face to face;
no admission
Day-case polypectomy procedure 995 Day-case procedure; MA12Z
Total cost 1456

a All costs are derived from the NHS reference costs 2011/12.138
Outcomes
Outcome data of interest within the trial were patient-reported effectiveness of the procedure and
also QALY gains at 6 and 12 months. Within the OPT Trial, the woman’s own assessment of bleeding
symptoms was used to establish if the treatment had been successful using a dichotomous outcome
measure (see Chapter 2, Primary clinical outcome measure: treatment success). Those patients whose
predominant complaint before the procedure was PMB or IMB were determined to have had a successful
treatment if their bleeding stopped. In women with HMB, treatment was successful if the patient reported
that their bleeding had returned to an acceptable level following the procedure.
All the patients in the trial were asked to complete EQ-5D-3L questionnaires at baseline, 6 months
and 12 months, and the responses obtained were used as the basis for the CUA.
Assumptions
It was necessary to make the following pragmatic assumptions before the analysis could be carried out.
l All of the centres involved in the trial were assumed to have the same expertise and to have followed
similar protocols in the management of these patients.
l Only the related events (REs) that occurred within 1 year of the procedure and were deemed relevant
to the polypectomy were included in the analysis. Related events included immediate complications
of the procedure, all hysterectomies (irrespective of the indication), endometrial ablation and
hysteroscopy/endometrial biopsy procedures within this time frame. Costs relating to further
polyp-related procedures, if any, were also estimated and stated separately to the REs.
l The costs of procurement of the different hysteroscope camera systems used by participating centres
in this study [Versascope® (Gynecare, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA); Olympus 5-mm rigid hysteroscope
(Olympus, Southend-on-Sea, UK) Storz Bettocchi hysteroscope (Karl Storz – Endoskope, Tuttlingen,
Germany] were assumed to be the same (see Appendix 20).
l The costs obtained from the manufacturers of this equipment varied by around £1000.
Analysis
Cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out at 6 and 12 months, based on the outcomes expressed
in natural units, which were estimated using responses obtained from patients to the question regarding
effectiveness of the procedure. The results are expressed in terms of cost per additional patient whose
symptoms improved with the procedure at 6 months and 12 months, respectively. A CUA was also carried
out at 6 and 12 months and the results are expressed as additional cost incurred per QALY gained.
Quality-of-life estimates were derived from EQ-5D responses provided by patients at baseline, 6 and
12 months by applying the standard UK tariff values. These estimates were then used to calculate total
QALYs over 6 and 12 months for every individual in the study, using standard methods.139
73
SO16 7NS, UK.
The presentation of results in QALYs allows comparison of the results with other available and recently
published studies.139 A range of one-way sensitivity analyses were carried out to explore the robustness
of the base-case results to plausible variations during the uptake of these procedures in routine NHS use.
In addition, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) of the base case was carried out to enable the
simultaneous exploration of the uncertainties in the cost and outcome data. The results of these analyses
are presented in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which reflect the additional cost
per additional outcome of interest of outpatient treatment compared with inpatient treatment. The results
of the CUA are presented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) to reflect sampling variation
and uncertainties in the appropriate threshold cost-effectiveness value.
The analysis took the perspective of the NHS following the current recommendation from National Institute
for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).139 A wider societal perspective was also estimated using the patients
self-reported out-of-pocket costs and is discussed within the sensitivity analysis within this report. As the
time frame of this economic evaluation is only 1 year, discounting was not necessary. Also, given that
there was no significant difference in the baseline EQ-5D scores (see Table 5), a baseline adjustment was
not performed during the analysis.
Base-case analysis
We carried out two main analyses on the trial data. The base-case analysis was based on the ITT principle.
A secondary analysis as per the treatment received by these patients irrespective of randomisation (the ‘PP’
analysis) was also carried out. Deterministic and PSAs were carried out for both of these methods.
Intention to treat
The base-case analysis estimated costs and outcomes as per ITT. In this method, patients are compared
within treatment groups to which they were originally randomised irrespective of the treatment received.140
This method of analysis allows the estimates to follow real-life scenarios in which patients may not always
receive the planned treatment. Not using ITT analysis can often exaggerate the benefits of a given
intervention, and it is widely acknowledged as the least biased of analysis options.141
Per-protocol analysis
Within the OPT Trial, equal numbers of patients were randomised to either outpatient or inpatient
polypectomy. However, 13% of those randomised to inpatient and 6% of those randomised to outpatient
group received the ‘wrong’ treatment within the trial (i.e. outpatient treatment when randomised
to inpatient and vice versa). Furthermore, 23 patients did not receive any treatment following
randomisation (see Figure 8).
A PP analysis was carried out to look at the effect of treatment received on the outcome estimates.
Therefore, in this analysis all patients who received outpatient treatment were compared with those
who received inpatient polypectomy irrespective of the treatment to which they were randomised.
Those who did not receive any treatment were disregarded for the purposes of this analysis.
Missing data
Within the trial, resource-use and outcome data could not be collected on all randomised patients
(reasons outlined in the CONSORT flow chart; see Figure 8). Multiple imputation, a statistical technique
that retains overall population variability and the relationship between observations, is considered useful
only when > 10% data are missing.142 Therefore, when > 10% of data were missing within the trial, these
were treated as missing at random (MAR) and estimated using MCMC multiple imputation method.
In this method we produced five simulated, complete versions of the data set using Stata 12 software.
Each of these simulated data sets was analysed using standard methods and the results combined so as to
produce estimates and CIs that incorporate missing data uncertainty. Given that the proportion of missing
data was > 10% at most of the data analysis points (Tables 37 and 38), multiple imputation was carried
out at all data points. The results obtained are summarised in Table 39.
74
TABLE 37 Costs incurred: ITT analysis (complete data set analysis)
Cost detaila Outpatient (£) Inpatient (£)
General
n = 254 n = 253
Baseline costs 343 343
Cost of procedure 280.6 (253.1) 992.5 (280.6)
Total procedure cost 623.6 (253.1) 1335.5 (331.5)

b
Cost of related RE (0–6 months) 116.9 (638.7) 99.5 (546.1)
b
Cost of related RE (0–12 months) 156.4 (737.3) 138.5 (656.3)
Between 0 and 6 months
n = 231 (9%)a n = 212 (16.2%)a
Cost of additional GP visits 7.4 (23.9) 5.5 (17.1)
Cost of additional hospital visits 8.7 (42.2) 4.2 (21.4)
Cost of admissions 17.4 (103.2) 11.8 (90.7)
Further procedures for polyps 17.8 (116.3) 12.0 (98.7)

Other related gynaecological procedures 41.9 (308.0) 20.9 (227.7)
b
Total additional costs at 6 months (excluding RE ) 93.2 (363.3) 54.5 (274.6)
Overall cost at 6 months 847.6 (870.9) 1529.2 (689.8)
Between 6 and 12 months
n = 228 (10.2%)a n = 219 (13.4%)a
Cost of additional GP visits 7.4 (25.9) 5.1 (16.7)
Cost of additional hospital visits 10.3 (44.0) 10.2 (38.8)

Cost of admissions 17.6 (92.6) 6.9 (58.5)
Further procedures for polyps 34.8 (173.7) 18.1 (119.1)
Other related gynaecological procedures 38.0 (309.1) 19.5 (223.8)
Total additional costs for 6–12 months (excluding REb) 108.2 (434.1) 59.8 (297.5)

a The numbers in brackets show the percentages of data missing/unavailable for analysis.
b RE refers to events related to the procedure or the underlying condition (i.e. endometrial polyp).
TABLE 38 Outcome data for ITT (complete data set analysis)
ITT analysis Outpatient, n = 254 Inpatient, n = 253
Effectiveness
6 months (mean; SD) 0.73; 0.45 (10.2) 0.80; 0.40 (16.6)
12 months (mean; SD) 0.81; 0.39 (11.4) 0.83; 0.38 (15.4)
EQ-5D
Baseline (mean; SD) 0.78; 0.25 (4.7) 0.79; 0.27 (8.3)

6 months (mean; SD) 0.87; 0.22 (9.5) 0.87; 0.2 (16.6)
12 months (mean; SD) 0.86; 0.25 (10.6) 0.86; 0.24 (13.4)

Numbers within parentheses signify percentage of data missing/unavailable for analysis.
75
SO16 7NS, UK.
TABLE 39 Cost-effectiveness and CUA (full data set after multiple imputation): ITT
ITT analysis Outpatient,a n = 254 Inpatient,a n = 253 Differenceb
6 months
Overall cost 822.1 (832.3) 1481.6 (680.5) –659.5 [65.7]
Overall QALY 0.41 (0.09) 0.41 (0.09) –0.0006 [0.01]
Patient-reported effectiveness 0.74 (0.44) 0.81 (0.39) –0.07 [0.04]
ICER (Δ cost/Δ effectiveness) £9421 per extra patient who feels better with inpatient treatment
ICER (Δ cost/Δ QALY) £1,099,167 per QALY gained on the inpatient arm
12 months
Overall cost 937.6 (971.4) 1606.3 (861.5) –668.8 [82.9]
Overall QALY 0.83 (0.19) 0.84 (0.18) –0.001 [0.02]
Patient-reported effectiveness 0.82 (0.39) 0.85 (0.36) –0.03 [0.31]
ICER (Δ cost/Δ effectiveness) £22,293 per additional patient who feels better with inpatient treatment
ICER (Δ cost/Δ QALY) £668,800 per additional QALY gained on the inpatient arm
a The mean values of cost and QALY are shown as mean (SD).
b Differences have been estimated using bootstrapping techniques so that the uncertainty around the mean cost estimates
can be accounted for. The results are shown as mean difference [standard error of the difference]. Negative results
suggest that the values for inpatient group are higher than those in the outpatient group.
Skewed data
As the majority of cost and outcome data are skewed, normal parametric methods cannot be used
to calculate the differences in means and, subsequently, the ICER. Bootstrapping is a non-parametric
approach that can be used to compare arithmetic means without making any assumptions regarding
the sampling distributions. In this analysis, 3000 bootstrapping replications were undertaken in
order to calculate the 95% CIs around the differences in mean costs and outcomes.
Sensitivity analysis
We carried out both deterministic and PSAs to explore data uncertainty during this economic evaluation.
Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) was carried out to assess the uncertainty associated with input
parameters for both analyses. This technique estimates the effect of changing a single parameter
(i.e. either cost or effectiveness) on the overall ICER obtained. The point estimates used for all the other
parameters remain unchanged. Within the current analysis, the following four options were considered.
Using bottom-up costs for outpatient and inpatient polypectomy (SAE1)

In the initial analyses, we considered only costs that were stipulated in the NHS reference costs.138
Although these costs are representative of the expenses incurred in the UK, in order to make the results
more generalisable we calculated the costs of the procedures by breaking them down to the individual
components involved and then adding up all of the costs to obtain an overall cost (i.e. bottom-up costing)
and repeated the analyses.
Given the range of drugs and resources used in the trial (see Appendix 16), proportional costs were
estimated for local anaesthetic agents used in the outpatient treatment arm (see Appendix 17). Similarly,
costs for general anaesthetic agents and equipment were estimated [General anaesthesia (drug costs),
see Appendices 18 and 19]. For this analysis, it was assumed that the equipment used during polypectomy
was similar for both outpatients and inpatients (see Appendix 20). The estimated ‘bottom-up ‘costs for
the outpatient and inpatient procedures are outlined in Appendices 21 and 22, respectively.
76
Considering the out-of-pocket costs incurred by patients for the treatment

(societal perspective) (DSA-2)
As the procedure is a short one and is not expected to result in long-standing illness or sickness absence
from work, the human capital approach method was used to estimate the societal costs of inpatient
polypectomy compared with outpatient polypectomy. For those patients (and companions) who were
in paid employment, the average hourly wage was calculated using the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
estimates for the whole UK economy143 and an estimated 38.5 hours of work per week. Estimates used
for leisure activities and household work were 42% and 57% of the net wage rate. These were derived
from published literature.144 The cost of looking after relatives was assumed to be the same as that of
household work (57% of net hourly wage). When patients had taken paid time off work, these costs
would have been incurred by the employers and were therefore included in the analysis. Those who were
not involved in housework and were not in active employment (e.g. university students, retired persons)
were assumed to incur the same costs as those for leisure activities.
Private travel costs were derived from the Automobile Association (AA).145 These costs include total
standing and running costs (fuel, parking, tolls, depreciation, wear and tear, tyre replacement, servicing,
etc.) and depend upon the annual mileage and type of car.145 For this analysis, it was assumed that the
car was a petrol vehicle of middle cost range (£13,000–18,000 for a new car) and averaged about 8430
miles annually.146
The cost of using public transport and car parking fees (where relevant) were directly obtained from the
patients. When time and mileage data were missing, these were assumed to be the same as the average
for the entire group. The details of the costs used are shown in Table 40.
Effect of ‘see and treat’ clinics (DSA-3a and DSA-3b)

Most clinicians who participated in the OPT Trial agreed that one of the advantages of outpatient
treatment would be that patients may be reviewed, diagnosed and treated at their first visit. Indeed,
a majority of patients included in the outpatient arm (72%) had their polypectomy performed on the
day of randomisation. We re-analysed the data assuming 100% and 0% compliance with this rule
(i.e. assuming that all patients and no patients were treated on the day of randomisation – DSA-3 and
DSA-4, respectively).
Using new tariffs for outpatient polypectomy (DSA-4)

The bottom-up costs for polypectomy are higher than the current NHS tariffs, particularly for outpatient
polypectomy (see Appendix 21). There has been some debate about the lack of incentive for ‘see and
treat’ clinics, given that the current remuneration is quite low. Therefore, a higher tariff for outpatient
polypectomy (at £1000) is being proposed. We have used these costs in a sensitivity analysis to predict
the effect of increased charges on the cost-effectiveness of this procedure.
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis uses random numbers to generate multiple possible estimates of cost
and outcomes from within the probability distributions (i.e. the Monte Carlo principle). A total of
TABLE 40 Estimation of out-of-pocket costs
Resource Cost (£) Source

Gross hourly wage Patient 12.75 ONS hourly age for women; August 2013
Companion 14.75 ONS average hourly wage; August 2013
Leisure activity 5.36 42% of gross hourly wage
House work 7.27 57% of gross hourly wage
Cost of private travel (per mile) 0.59 AA (AA.com, 2013145)
77
SO16 7NS, UK.
5000 simulations were carried out using the Monte Carlo principle. The distribution around each
parameter was specified by its baseline estimate and a bound (upper or lower) of the estimated 95% CI.
The advantage of this method is that all parameter uncertainties can be incorporated simultaneously into
the analysis. The result of this analysis allowed the generation of a CEAC that demonstrates the probability
of an intervention being cost-effective at different willingness-to-pay thresholds.
Results
The results for the base-case (ITT) analysis are presented above (see Table 39). For the base case, we
estimated that the point estimates of the mean costs incurred at 6 months on the outpatient and inpatient
arm were £822 and £1482 respectively, a cost difference of £660. At the end of 12 months, the costs
increased slightly to £938 and £1606 respectively, a cost difference of £669. The results obtained by
the PP analysis are outlined in (see Appendix 23). Inpatient costs remained higher than outpatient in the
PP analysis (see Appendix 24) at 6 and 12 months, although these were slightly higher than those in
the ITT analysis. The differences in cost at 6 and 12 months with the PP analysis were £923 and £941,
respectively (see Appendix 25).
The point estimates for mean QALYs in the inpatient and the outpatient groups at 6 months were almost
equal in both the ITT and PP analyses. At 12 months, the QALY estimates were slightly different at
12 months in both analyses (see Table 39 and Appendix 25). The point estimates for difference in QALY
were 0.0006 and 0.001 at 6 and 12 months, respectively, in the base-case (ITT) analysis. In the PP analysis,
QALY estimates for inpatients were slightly higher at 6 months, whereas at 12 months the point estimates
for QALY were higher for outpatients (see Appendix 25). The proportion of patients who reported
improvement in symptoms following polypectomy were 0.74 and 0.81 at 6 months and 0.82 and 0.85
at 12 months in the outpatient and inpatient arms, respectively, as per the ITT analysis (after imputing
for missing data). The corresponding values for difference in effectiveness at 6 and 12 months were 0.07
and 0.03. In the PP analysis, the point estimates for patient-reported effectiveness of inpatient therapy was
higher than outpatient therapy at 6 months. However, at 12 months, the point estimate for outpatient
treatment was slightly higher. Thus at 6 months in the ITT analysis, we estimated that it cost an extra
£9421 per patient who felt better with inpatient treatment and £1,099,167 per additional QALY gained
on the inpatient arm (see Table 39). At 12 months, these costs were £22,293 per additional effectively
treated patient and £668,800 per additional QALY gained, respectively.
Similar results were obtained using the PP analysis (see Appendix 25), although outpatient treatment
dominated inpatient treatment (i.e. it is less expensive while being more effective) at 12 months.
Deterministic sensitivity analysis

Holding the outcome data constant, DSAs were carried out by changing the cost data. As shown in
Table 41, inpatient polypectomy remained more expensive than outpatient treatment in all of the scenarios
considered. The ICERs for DSA-1 to DSA-3 are similar to those obtained by the base-case analysis,
and somewhat lower when the new tariffs are applied for outpatient treatment (DSA-4). The DSA results
obtained by PP analyses (see Appendix 26) are also similar to those obtained for the base case. Therefore,
we can surmise that the results obtained by this analysis are not sensitive to plausible changes in the costs
of these procedures.
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the likelihood of outpatient polypectomy being effective
(when EQ-5D estimates are used as outcome of interest) is similar to that of inpatient treatment as per the
ITT analysis (Figures 21 and 22) clearly demonstrate that although inpatient treatment is definitely more
expensive than the outpatient treatment, the difference in effectiveness is more uncertain. The mean cost
differences between the groups as per the PSA were £661 and £658 at 6 and 12 months, respectively
(the inpatient costs are higher). The corresponding values for QALY difference were 0.0002 and 0.0005,
78
SO16 7NS, UK.
DOI: 10.3310/hta19610
TABLE 41 Deterministic sensitivity analyses: ITT
DSA-3a (‘see and treat’

DSA-2 (out-of-pocket at same appointment DSA-3b (‘see then treat’ DSA-4 (new
DSA-1 (bottom-up costs) costs) for all outpatients) for all outpatients) outpatient tariffs)
ITT analysis 6 months 12 months 6 months 12 months 6 months 12 months 6 months 12 months 6 months 12 months
a
Cost difference: mean difference –719.8 –664.2 –671.7 –618.6 –673.5 –620.4 –584.5 –531.4 –294.1 –241.0
(standard error of the difference) (68.8) (83.2) (66.2) (84.3) (66.8) (80.0) (65.7) (79.0) (63.0) (76.2)
ICERb 10,282.9 22,140 9595.7 20,620 9621.4 20,680 8350 17,713.3 4201.4 8033.3
Cost/QALY 1,199,666.7 664,200 1,119,500 618,600 1,122,500 620,400 974,166.7 531,400 490,166.7 241,000
a Differences have been estimated using bootstrapping techniques so that the uncertainty around the mean cost estimates can be accounted for. The negative values of cost difference
imply that the cost of inpatient therapy is higher than that of outpatient treatment.
b The ICER refers to cost difference/difference in self-reported effectiveness at 6 and 12 months respectively. Effectiveness and QALY difference are assumed constant for DSA-1 through
to DSA-5. For values refer to Table 39.
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2015 VOL. 19 NO. 61
79
600
400
QALY 200
difference
−0.06 −0.04 −0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06

−200
−400
−600
−800
−1000
Cost difference (£)
FIGURE 21 Probabilistic sensitivity analysis: outpatient vs. inpatient treatment – ITT analysis at 6 months.
600
400
QALY 200
difference
−0.060 −0.040 −0.020 0.02 0.04 0.06

−200
−400
−600
−800
−1000
−1200
FIGURE 22 Probabilistic sensitivity analysis: outpatient vs. inpatient treatment – ITT analysis at 12 months.
respectively, at 6 and 12 months (the inpatient QALY gain is higher). This suggests that the effects of the
treatment on costs and QALYs beyond 6 months, as expected, are minimal.
The CEACs shown in Figure 23 demonstrate that given that both treatments are equally effective, the
cheaper treatment will be the preferred procedure at lower willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Indeed,
inpatient and outpatient therapy start to become equally cost-effective only at a WTP threshold of £90,000.
A similar picture was seen when PSA was carried out using the PP data. The results of this analysis are
shown in Appendices 27 and 28. The CEAC derived from the PP analysis is shown in Appendix 29.
Figures 21 and 22 show PSA, which simultaneously represents uncertainty in cost and QALY values.
The x- and y-axes represent the incremental effectiveness and cost of outpatient treatment compared
with inpatient treatment respectively. These figures represent the results for ITT analysis at 6 and
12 months. Most of the values fall in the lower-right and lower-left quadrants, demonstrating that
inpatient therapy is more expensive than outpatient treatment. The equal distribution between
80
1.0
Probability that OPT is cost-effective 0.8
0.6
6 months
0.4 12 months
0.2
0.0
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Willingness-to-pay threshold (£)
FIGURE 23 Cost effectiveness acceptability curve outpatient vs. inpatient treatment: ITT analysis.
the left and right quadrants suggests that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the effectiveness
of one treatment over the other (based on QALY values). In other words, the effectiveness of both
treatments is similar.
Figure 23 shows a CEAC illustrating the uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimates by demonstrating
the likelihood of an intervention being cost-effective at a given cost threshold compared with the proposed
alternative. In this case, given that the likelihood of effectiveness of both treatments is roughly the same, the
cheaper treatment is considered most cost-effective at baseline.
Discussion
Principal findings
We found that inpatient polypectomy was more expensive than outpatient treatment and marginally
more effective, resulting in slightly higher point estimates of self-reported effectiveness and QALY values
at 6 and 12 months. The differences in costs and outcomes between these procedures were fairly constant
at these time points, reflecting that the treatment has very little long term (i.e. beyond 6 months)
implications on health and resource use. The ICERs obtained by cost-effectiveness and CUA were very
high, reflecting the equivalence in effectiveness between these procedures. Although the mean estimates
of outcomes appear to favour inpatient treatment, it is important to note that there was considerable
uncertainty around these point estimates. This was explored further using PSA, clearly demonstrating that
although outpatient therapy is definitely cheaper than inpatient treatment, the effectiveness estimates are
uncertain, with the likelihood of effectiveness being roughly equal in both groups at 6 and 12 months.
A range of cost variations, which were considered plausible during the implementation of these treatment
pathways within the NHS, were considered. However, these did not make a difference to the conclusions
from the base-case analysis. It is notable that the bottom-up costs estimated for outpatient and inpatient
procedure during this analysis were quite close to the tariffs from the NHS reference costs138
(see Appendices 21 and 22).
Although this was a non-inferiority trial and there was equivalence in effectiveness while costs were
different between the groups (the so-called ‘weak dominance’ situation as postulated by Drummond
et al.147), a cost-minimisation analysis was not considered to be appropriate, as this would not provide
adequate information regarding the uncertainty in the estimates. This is better estimated by carrying out
a full cost-effectiveness and PSAs.148
81
SO16 7NS, UK.

The OPT study is the largest randomised prospective study to estimate the costs and effectiveness
of inpatient treatment compared with outpatient treatment for uterine polyps in women with AUB.
Economic data in this study were collected prospectively alongside clinical outcome data, enabling
accurate estimation of the costs and outcomes. In addition, robust techniques were used to account for
data uncertainty, missing data and the skewness of data. Although the main analysis is mainly relevant
to the UK, the sensitivity analyses enhance the generalisability of the findings of the study.
It was assumed for the purposes of this analysis that all of the participating UK centres had similar
expertise with regards to inpatient and outpatient treatments, but it is possible that centres where
outpatient therapy has been offered on the NHS for many years perform the procedure better than those
with relatively inexperienced clinicians. In the interests of simplicity and clarity, the economic analysis
did not explore the differences in costs and outcomes in subgroups of patients considered within the trial
(e.g. premenopausal vs. postmenopausal, different age groups, etc.). The clinical effectiveness results for
these groups were roughly similar and it was, therefore, felt that no further value could be added by
extending the analysis. It should be noted that training costs were not included in this analysis. However,
diagnostic hysteroscopy is now routinely performed in the outpatient setting and given this familiarity with
the technique, performing an outpatient polypectomy may need relatively little further training. In addition,
it is envisaged that all current clinical trainees (and future consultants) may have acquired the skills
necessary for this procedure during their training.
This is the first study to estimate prospectively and compare the costs and outcomes of inpatient treatment
with outpatient treatment for this condition.147 A previous analysis was carried out in this area and a CEA
was performed but this was a single-centre retrospective audit that included only a small number
of patients.147

Outpatient polypectomy is a cost-effective procedure and should be recommended as best use of limited
NHS resources in patients with AUB due to uterine polyps.
Conclusion
Outpatient polyp treatment was less expensive than traditional inpatient treatment and similarly effective,
resulting in slightly lower self-reported effectiveness and QALY values at 6 and 12 months. The differences
in costs and outcomes between these procedures were fairly constant at these time points, reflecting that
the treatment has very few longer-term implications on health and resource use. The ICERs for inpatient
compared with outpatient treatment obtained by cost-effectiveness and CUAs were very high, reflecting
the equivalence in effectiveness between these procedures. Sensitivity analyses clearly demonstrated that
although outpatient therapy was definitely cheaper than inpatient treatment, there was uncertainty around
the effectiveness estimates implying the effectiveness of the two alternatives was broadly similar. Thus,
outpatient polypectomy appears to be more cost-effective relative to the current inpatient approaches
for polypectomy at current acceptable WTP thresholds for the NHS.
82
Chapter 6 Patient acceptability and experience of

outpatient polyp treatment
Introduction
The qualitative study was undertaken in order to aid interpretation and understanding of the questionnaire
data on acceptability of the procedure and to gain insight into women’s experience of undergoing both
groups of the trial. Qualitative research is particularly useful when the aim is to understand people’s
motivations and experience in the context of their lives through the generation of in-depth data. In a study
on the use of qualitative research in urogynaecology, Doshani et al.149 argued that qualitative research can
both inform and complement quantitative research in a number of ways, one of which is the clarification
of quantitative findings. Qualitative data also add context to the results by placing them within a woman’s
life experience and allowing for individual impact of symptoms or treatments to be considered.
In this research we aimed to assess patient acceptability of both the inpatient and outpatient groups
of the OPT Trial using qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of women. We also aimed to explore
the motivation of women for agreeing or refusing to take part in the trial.
Little research has been conducted into women’s experience of hysteroscopy, and only one study150
has used a qualitative approach – a study that reported women’s views of outpatient diagnostic
hysteroscopy recruited from women who were undergoing the procedure for irregular bleeding or
increased endometrial thickness on ultrasound. Of the 29 participants only two said they would prefer to
have the hysteroscopy performed under general anaesthetic in the future, one citing pain and the other
feeling that it was more convenient to have any problems that were discovered dealt with at the same
time as the diagnostic procedure. Other women interviewed spoke of their dislike of anaesthetics, and the
convenience of being discharged immediately as motivating factors in their preference for outpatient
treatment. Reduced anxiety was associated with having the procedure at the initial clinic appointment,
and the psychosocial aspects of care by doctors and nurses was considered to contribute to this. Gupta et
al.120 also studied patient anxiety at a ‘one-stop’ hysteroscopy clinic, using the 20-item State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory with 240 women. This found that women attending the ‘one-stop’ clinic had higher anxiety
levels than those attending general gynaecology clinics, and also higher levels than those awaiting major
surgery. The authors suggest that this may be attributable to expectations that increasingly invasive
diagnostic and therapeutic procedures may be carried out in outpatient clinics, but also point out that the
presenting disorder may also be a relevant factor as chronic pelvic pain clinics are also associated with high
anxiety levels.120
Literature on participation in clinical trials is largely concerned with serious or complex conditions, such
as cancer, and is mainly undertaken from a quantitative perspective.151 Qualitative work in the field tends
to focus on how people make sense of the research study in which they are engaged, their participation
within it, and how they manage the tensions within their role as participant.152 A study that explored the
rationale for taking part in a qualitative study on diabetes service provision found that four main themes
emerged: recruitment within health contexts (‘the nurse said it would help’), altruism (‘if it can help
somebody’), qualitative research being seen as inherently innocuous (‘nothing to lose’) and therapeutic
aspects of interviewing (‘getting it off my chest’).151 A more recent study examined women’s motivation
for participating in a trial of a prototype instrumentation with potential for diagnosing breast cancer.
Similar themes emerged, which the authors labelled ‘gift and exchange’ relationships; a prescience
alignment; and narratives of health care.152 Altruism is also a feature of research motivation in quantitative
research on participation, although research in clinical trials also demonstrates a level of self-interest in
that people believe (rightly or wrongly) that they will receive better care by participating.153
83
SO16 7NS, UK.
PATIENT ACCEPTABILITY AND EXPERIENCE OF OUTPATIENT POLYP TREATMENT
In summary, previous research is limited and suggests that women prefer to have gynaecological
procedures carried out under LA, although this is associated with high anxiety levels. Motivation for
participation in RCTs is focused around a mixture of altruism and self-interest.
Methodology
The research aim was addressed by undertaking qualitative interviews with a sample of women in each
group of the trial in order to collect more in-depth data on both the process and the views of women
about their experience than could be collected by quantitative questionnaires. Interviewing allowed
women to introduce areas of discussion that were important to them at a time when the experience was
still recent but when they had also had the opportunity for reflection.
Sample
The initial intention was to interview a 10% sample of women from the inpatient and outpatient groups
of the study, which would give a sample size of 24 patients from each group, although the basic rule
of data saturation would have been applied. That is recruitment would have stopped for each group when
no new data were being generated on the issues identified as important to many of the women.
This sampling strategy changed when it was realised that a significant number of women were stating
a treatment preference, and also that some women who were randomised or stated a preference for
outpatient treatment were not treated immediately. It was felt by the team that these factors could affect
notions of acceptability, and so recruitment was stratified to include all of these groups. This resulted
in greater outpatient than inpatient numbers. Preference patient recruitment was also weighted towards
outpatient as 324 of 399 in this cohort chose to be treated as an outpatient.
The final sample (41 women) is detailed in Table 42.
Women were recruited to the qualitative study during the random allocation process of the trial. They
were informed that they had been allocated for interview and consent was taken by the research nurse
at the centre. They were then telephoned by one of the qualitative research team to arrange a suitable
time for interview, and to answer any questions. Women were recruited from most of the trial sites.
Method
To ascertain issues of importance to women before the main study took place a focus group was
conducted with women who had undergone outpatient hysteroscopy in the previous 2 years. Although
six women were due to take part in the focus group, only three attended, but it still proved to be a useful
exercise, as important issues were raised around pain levels and information received about the procedure,
which were included in the interview schedules.
TABLE 42 Qualitative study recruitment
Randomised patients = 28 (total recruited 507)
Inpatients 12
Outpatients See and treat 11
Waiting list 5
Preference patients = 13 (total recruited 399)
Inpatients 4
Outpatients See and treat 6

Waiting list 3
84
Semistructured interviews were conducted by phone to include a wide range of research sites from across
the country in the sample. In a study comparing telephone with face-to-face interviews it was found that
telephone interviews tended to be of shorter duration because less detail was given in answers by
participants.154 However, it was acknowledged by the author that there may be good reasons for using
telephone interviews, and in the current study the multicentred nature of the trial lead to the adoption
of this approach. Interviews took place around 1 week following treatment and took between 15 and
30 minutes. All were recorded with permission. The time interval was chosen in order that women would
be able to reflect on the experience with minimum retention bias and to reduce the chance of being
influenced in their responses by gratitude to doctors and other hospital staff. Slightly different schedules
were developed for randomised and preference patients with questions focusing on the motivation to take
part in the research or to choose their treatment method, and their experience of it. Women were also
encouraged to raise issues of concern to them that were not asked by the researchers. Interview tapes
were transcribed verbatim. To ensure content and face validity, the interview schedule was reviewed after
the first three interviews.155
Data analysis
Data were analysed using thematic analysis, which is used to identify, analyse and report patterns within
the data.156 A staged approach to analysis was undertaken. In the first instance, transcripts were read and
data were analysed independently by each researcher, with the subsequent generation of codes and initial
themes. The process for carrying out this task was decided individually but involved intensive reading of each
transcript, looking for consistency, contradictions and recurring themes. Next the two researchers met
to compare codes and themes, and to decide on final themes which reflected the data. Third, an independent
qualitative researcher sampled the transcripts and agreed the themes as consistent with the data. In an
additional phase to the thematic analysis model used, we also explored inconsistencies within the data.
Achieving consensus within the team constituted a form of verification. As the qualitative literature on the
subject of hysteroscopy was sparse, verification through embedding this research within it was not possible.
Findings
Most women from all of the categories identified were satisfied with their treatment and with the care
they received from staff. There were, however, some differences within the sample, and some
minority views.
Characteristics of sample
Women who were recruited to the study suffered from PMB (n = 22), IMB (n = 10) or HMB (n = 9). Women
who experienced PMB tended to seek medical advice immediately and were referred to a gynaecologist by
their GP without initial investigations or treatment. Those whose main complaint was IMB or HMB were
more likely to adopt a ‘wait and see’ approach until symptoms persisted or worsened, and some of these
women were sent for scans or treated with medication to reduce bleeding before being referred by
their GP.
Participation in a randomised trial

The women who agreed to be randomised all had similar reasons for taking part and these are consistent
with previous research.152 Altruistic reasons around helping other women were common, although a few
women also personalised this with comments such as ‘my daughter may need this in the future’ (1388*).
Other women gave more abstract reasons to do with research more generally. One randomised
inpatient said:
I tend to think that any research for anything is a good thing, and we can only go forward with doing
the research.
1116
85
SO16 7NS, UK.
Two women had concerns about both treatment options, so were happy to have the decision taken for them.
I wasn’t too happy to be put to sleep because basically I’m always sick when I wake up. But then if you look
at it the other way I wouldn’t be too happy if they hurt me. So they took the choice from me, so that’s good.
1340
Having been randomised the majority of women declared themselves happy with the group to which they
had been assigned. A few women did not really understand the randomisation process, and one thought
that the computer was deciding on a treatment, based on clinical factors.
The preference patients had more individual reasons for choosing one treatment option over the other.
Most women choosing outpatient treatment wanted it over and done with in one hospital visit, and even
although for one of these women the procedure could not be completed she still thought it was the right
choice. She commented:
[The doctor] tried her best and it just wasn’t to be. It wasn’t anyone’s fault, it’s just the way it is.
5134
Of the other women, two had a fear of anaesthetics, one had a pre-existing medical condition, one had
children to make arrangements for, and one did not want to take time off work. Very few women in the
study chose inpatient treatment and the four interviewed for the qualitative study all spoke of a previous
bad experience of hysteroscopy or other procedures under local anaesthetic, or embarrassment at being in
stirrups, which made them want a general anaesthetic.
In both groups of the study a number of women told of how they had consulted friends and family before
attending the clinic, or the nurse in the clinic, in order to make a decision about the procedure, but this
had to be weighed up against their personal feelings. For example one woman randomised to outpatient
treatment said:
I had a lot of reservations about the procedure because people had told me how painful it was,
but I don’t react very well to anaesthetics so for me I was glad it went the way it did.
1019
(*Patient trial no.)
Experience of the procedure

Women were asked about their care during the procedure and whether/how their dignity was maintained.
This was an area of importance for women, particularly those in the outpatient group, and, as reported
above, it was a factor in the decision of one woman to opt for inpatient treatment.
Most women in the outpatient groups of the trial, whether randomised or preference, were pleased
to get the procedure over in one hospital visit, and some expressed surprise that it could all be done
without them having to come back. However, those outpatients who had to return for treatment were
also satisfied with the process, as there is a general expectation of health services that an initial
appointment is followed by a separate appointment for treatment, so they viewed it as normal practice.
Only four women in the outpatient groups reported feeling embarrassed at the physical position they were
in and some likened it to childbirth in terms of being exposed in front of strangers. However, most women
recognised that there was no alternative, and were resigned to some embarrassment. As one
woman commented:
I’ve had four children. It is more undignified than anything else. It’s a bit embarrassing, but it’s got to be done.
1002
86
The majority of women felt that the staff did as much as possible to maintain their dignity during
the procedure, and appreciated having one nurse at their head to talk them through it or to take their
mind off it, which may explain the low numbers of women feeling embarrassed during the procedure.
There was almost unanimous praise for the sensitive way that the nurses and doctors treated them,
putting them at ease and explaining what was happening, and it was implied or directly stated that this
influenced their overall satisfaction. A few women felt that the number of people in the room, particularly
the presence of staff not directly involved in caring for them, such as medical students or other doctors,
added to their embarrassment, and one woman felt that the staff were uncaring.
Most women feel that they were given sufficient time to recover following the procedure, although a small
minority felt pressured to leave. Postoperative recovery was generally quick in this group, unless a lot
of pain was experienced, which will be discussed below.
For inpatients having a general anaesthetic, dignity was not such an issue, even although they knew that
they would be exposed in theatre. Two women felt that they were kept waiting for too long for the
operation, as they had been starved, but otherwise all of the women were satisfied with their care.
Postoperatively, women in this group reported more fatigue, and took longer to recover as they had had
a general anaesthetic, but none reported this as a major drawback. One woman was concerned that no
doctor came to the ward to discharge her but, again, this may be to do with patient expectations of how
health services operate rather than an actual need to see a doctor. One woman felt that she would have
benefitted from staying in hospital overnight (she had a small child) but all of the other inpatients were
pleased to go home soon after the procedure.
Pain
Women were all asked about any pain that they experienced during and after the procedure and this
was the common factor for all within both groups of the trial, although there was quite a diversity of
responses. Pain can be divided into that experienced during the procedure, immediately after and over
the following few days.
Obviously pain during the procedure was experienced only by women in the outpatient group. It is noted
though that for a small group of patients in the preference group the request for a general anaesthetic
was because they reported a very painful previous experience during the OPH. Reports from women in
the outpatient group ranged from ‘mild discomfort’ to ‘excruciating pain’ but was reported as difficult to
cope with by nearly one-third of all participants treated as outpatients. The preference patients reported
less pain than the randomised ones, using descriptions such as ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bearable’ and ‘better
than expected’. As one woman described it:
I geared myself up for it being really painful, you know extremely painful cramps, but I haven’t had
any of that, touch wood. Actually it was a really good process.
5279
This group also reported little postoperative pain, describing it like wind or period pain, although one
woman did get a sharp pain after 2 days, which her GP attributed to thrush.
Randomised patients on the other hand described a wide range of pain experiences both during and after
the procedure. Most women who were randomised to an outpatient procedure expected it to be painful,
and that was the reality in all but two of the cases. They spoke of cramping pains, a few said that it hurt
more than they were expecting and one described it as ‘excruciating’ but for the most part women were
quite stoical. They commented that ‘it had to be done’ or ‘it was over in 10 minutes’ and spoke of the
trade-off between an element of pain and a quick and convenient procedure. One woman rationalised
the amount of pain by her own attitude, stating that she was always very tense during internal
examinations and could not relax during the procedure, which had to be abandoned.
87
SO16 7NS, UK.
I can’t say that’s anything to do with what they were doing, I think a lot was due to me not
relaxing properly.
1350
A minority of women felt little or no discomfort during the procedure.
There was a fair bit of oohing and aahing but I am not sure you would call it painful.
1002
I was expecting it to be uncomfortable and it wasn’t. I was almost waiting for something to happen
when he said ‘that’s it’.
1029
After the procedure, some women found that the pain disappeared fairly quickly, usually within 2 hours,
but others reported that it lasted for a few hours or in four cases even a couple of days, and one woman
felt it was worse after the procedure than during it. The main description of pain at this time was that it
was crampy, or like a period pain, and was generally short lived. Some women, but not all, had been
warned that they may feel like this following the procedure.
Those randomised to inpatient treatment reported postoperative fatigue rather than pain, and tended to
experience less postoperative pain than outpatients.
In summary, most women felt some pain either during the procedure (outpatients) and/or in the hours
or days following. This was generally a crampy pain that was described as bearable, but for some women
it was more uncomfortable. For women randomised to outpatient treatment this was felt to be worth
the convenience of a quick procedure but some participants expressed the opinion that the level of pain
experienced might be difficult for all women to cope with. Preference patients tended to report less
pain overall than those who were randomised.
Information needs
All women should have received the trial patient information sheet before attending the clinic. Some
women denied having this and others admitted to not reading it, which affected the level of knowledge
of the two treatments. However some of these reported that clinic staff gave detailed information to allow
them to make an informed decision on whether to take part.
I think that every point was explained clearly and when I asked questions they gave me the clear
answer and support and so I was happy with everything.
1105
Despite receiving information, not all women understood the randomisation process. Three ‘preference’
outpatients thought that they were taking part in the trial, and two said that they did not take part in the
trial because they did not understand it.
Most of those women who did agree to be randomised knew what this involved and what the trial groups
were. One, however, thought that the computer made the treatment decision on the basis of clinical
factors; another that the consultant decided; and there were a few other misconceptions. One woman
who was randomised to inpatient treatment did not know that outpatient treatment was carried out
without anaesthetic, to which she would not have agreed, as she found the diagnostic hysteroscopy
so painful.
Most women were happy with the information that they received preoperatively but there were two
suggestions for additional information. One woman said that it should be made clear that after treatment
patients would not be able to drive and so should bring someone with them; another that you should be
88
given some idea of how long you would be in the hospital, because of car parking, care responsibilities,
etc. Two women who were starved for long periods before inpatient treatment felt that the length of time
for starving should be more closely aligned to the operation time.
Three women wanted more specific information regarding pain relief for those having outpatient
treatment. This amounted to recommending specific painkillers for the type of pain likely to be
experienced (e.g. ibuprofen) and a time to take it for it to be most effective during the procedure.
Women who had inpatient procedures were more likely to feel that they had received adequate
information on discharge than those who were outpatients, possibly because they received general
discharge information. The type of information that preference and randomised outpatients would like
to have had focused on two issues: what to expect in terms of recovery and when they could resume
normal activities. Women did not know whether postoperative pain or bleeding was normal and, if so,
how long it should last before they should seek medical help. They were also unsure whether to consult
the hospital or their GP and felt that a contact for problems could be provided.
Resuming normal activities revolved around issues, such as going back to work, driving and resuming
sexual activity.
Most women assumed that the polyp was benign and that once it was taken out that was the end
of the matter, but three wondered about the histology and what would happen to the result. Two
women reported having had previous gynaecological cancer and were understandably more anxious
about receiving a result from the histology but women were generally unaware whether it would be
sent to them or not.
Differences between inpatient and outpatient experience

The main difference in experience was that outpatients reported some pain and embarrassment during
the procedure, and inpatients had some level of fatigue from the anaesthetic. Only the inpatients reported
returning to work before they were really ready but this was an issue for only two patients. Inpatients also
had different ideas over the level of medical care they should receive, expecting a doctor to discharge
them and follow-up appointments. As discussed above this may be because of expectations of the health
care system and being admitted to hospital.
I understand how busy the consultants are but it would have been nice if the consultant or one
of the team had come down prior to us going home.
5258
Two inpatients commented on the length of the day, as they were required to be admitted early morning
for an afternoon operation. Conversely, outpatients often commented on how quickly they were seen
and the procedure carried out, and were pleasantly surprised.
None of the inpatients commented on having to attend an appointment for a hysteroscopy and return
for removal of the polyps, but two women who opted for inpatient treatment did cite a painful
hysteroscopy as a rationale for their choice.
Women in the outpatient groups balanced the pain of the procedure with the convenience of the
‘one-stop shop’, and often set that within the context of their lives. So, for example, one woman described
herself as a workaholic who could not stand the idea of taking sick leave. One visit to the clinic and no
anaesthetic allowed her to go back to work the next day. Another woman commented that she did not
want to explain details of her health to her employer, and a short appointment allowed her to maintain
her privacy. Many women in the outpatient groups felt that the pain and embarrassment of the procedure
was compensated by not having to return to the hospital or take time off work and the financial cost that
these would incur. Avoiding a general anaesthetic was also a positive aspect, particularly for those who
89
SO16 7NS, UK.
had had previous poor experience of this or who had a complicating medical condition, such as one
woman who had epilepsy.
When comparing treatments, another woman randomised to outpatient commented:
[with inpatient treatment] I have to make a lot of arrangements for my daughter and everything so
I was quite happy with this.
1098
Three women thought that if they had been asked to go home after the hysteroscopy and return at a later
date they may not have done, which they thought was an advantage of a ‘one-stop clinic’. One likened it
to the dentist telling you that you need a tooth extracting.
You know that if you go home you won’t come back.

1029
Differences between randomised and preference patients

The rationale for choosing to enter the trial varied, with randomised patients expressing altruistic reasons
around helping others or generalised views of the benefits of research, whereas preference patients
tended to have more individualised reasons for their choice.
Minority experiences
Two women, both allocated to outpatient treatment, had a negative experience that they found to be very
traumatic and which is worth reporting, even although they were a small minority. The first woman had
undergone removal of polyps in the past under general anaesthetic but was happy to take part in the trial.
She expected some pain during the procedure, as friends had told her it ‘wasn’t very nice’ (1329).
However, she described what she went through as horrendous, and something she would never go
through again.
It got to the point I think my body went into shock. I was shaking, you know, I couldn’t keep my legs
still. They were trying to take my mind off it asking what I considered stupid questions at the time.
Obviously they were doing a job and it got to a point where I just couldn’t speak I was in so much
pain. I think one of the nurses realised and said are you able to cope and the doctor just said ‘oh,
she’ll be alright’.
1329
Later in the interview, she expressed the view that the outpatient treatment should not be offered at all:
It’s torture, it’s barbaric and it shouldn’t be allowed to be done.

1329
This woman’s procedure was completed. However, in the case of the second woman who reported
extreme pain and shaking, saying that she was in shock, the procedure was terminated in favour of a later
inpatient procedure. This patient also reports that she was in pain and bleeding heavily for several days
and would never agree to a similar procedure being done without anaesthetic again. She commented
that she had not realised that it would be a one-stop procedure, even although she had agreed to be
randomised. She thought that after the hysteroscopy the procedure would be over and she would return
for an anaesthetic, as she was in pain from the start. Like the woman above, she describes being in shock
and shaking badly due to the pain, but, unlike the first woman, she commented that the clinic staff tried
to support and relax her.
90
Satisfaction with the procedure

There was a high level of satisfaction from the women interviewed, from both groups of the study
and from randomised and preference patients.
Women who had outpatient treatment largely felt that the procedure was talked through and they knew
what was happening, for most a nurse was with them either explaining or talking to take their mind off it.
Women appreciated the presence of a nurse throughout the procedure who was not involved in their
clinical care to hold their hand and reassure them. This was a very positive aspect of the study and greatly
appreciated by patients. Only one patient (discussed in the minority experiences above) felt that she was
not treated with care and empathy.
All appreciated the fact that it was over quickly and they could get back to normal almost immediately.
The fact that it takes 5 minutes and it can be done there and then seems to make perfect sense really.
1029
Although some women did find it painful, this was expected and did not alter their overall satisfaction.
One woman randomised to outpatient treatment summed up the views of the majority:
I suppose it was painful but it was more like they explained it a crampy period type pain for the first few
hours after, but it wasn’t too bad at all, not like I was expecting . . . I was quite pleased the way it all went
and I did go back to work the next day, so I don’t think you can hope for much more than that really.
1019
Women who were admitted for general anaesthetic were also satisfied with their treatment, apart from
the long wait experienced by two women. Those who had a lot of pain during the hysteroscopy generally
felt pleased to be randomised to inpatient treatment, and it was the reason for two preference patients’
decisions. As with the outpatient group, these women felt that the care they received was good.
Discussion
Principal findings
The most obvious finding of the study was that women expressed satisfaction with their treatment,
whatever their preference for inpatient or outpatient treatment, and whether or not they received it.
For most of the women their symptoms were an inconvenience rather than a major disruption to their
lives, something that they wanted dealing with quickly, and a ‘see and treat’ intervention could be seen as
a proportionate response to the problem. The value was that it fitted into their lives, and is consistent with
the immediacy and convenience of other aspects of modern living, such as internet banking and 24-hour
shopping. A number of women spoke of the advantage of outpatient treatment as being discharged
quickly and getting back to normal. However, women who were admitted in a two-stage procedure,
whether for outpatient or inpatient treatment, also expressed satisfaction, and for seven women
(four preference and three randomised) the idea of invasive treatment while awake was not acceptable,
and therefore the option of general anaesthetic is still needed, even although this would seem to be a
minority choice. However, this overall finding of satisfaction with the processes and procedures must be
weighed against the levels of pain and discomfort experienced by a significant number of the women
taking part.
In contrast with findings by Gupta et al.120 in this study few women expressed feeling anxious
preoperatively, although many spoke of expecting some pain during the procedure. This may be because
this study was retrospective, whereas Gupta et al.120 administered the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory pre
procedure. It is also possible that as medical procedures are increasingly being carried out on an outpatient
91
SO16 7NS, UK.
basis there is more familiarity and acceptance of them by patients, and indeed some women had previous
experience of this for polyps and other conditions.
One finding that is hard to explain is that ‘preference’ patients reported less pain than ‘randomised’
patients. This may be an artefact of a small sample size, or preference patients wanting to justify their
choice. There may also be a difference between a population that agrees to be randomised in research
and that which does not, and it is important to obtain data from both, particularly in research such as this
for which there was a large preference group.

No previous study has used a qualitative methodology to explore women’s experience of OPH, and
to compare inpatient and outpatient experience. Undertaking a qualitative study within the OPT Trial
has provided an additional perspective on being in a medical trial and has confirmed the overall
satisfaction reported in the rating scales. It has also allowed for an expansion of the two minority
experiences that women reported. The advantage of the approach was that we were able to explore issues
that women raised of concern to them rather than the researcher-defined issues, thereby supplementing
quantitative quality-of-life data with more in-depth exploration providing contextualised views. In addition,
timing the semistructured interviews one week following treatment provided more perspective to women
on their overall treatment.
The main limitations of the study were using telephone interviews, and not being able to obtain
respondent validation – issues that may be linked. The disadvantages of telephone interviews have been
discussed above, but in a multicentre study the choices are to restrict interviewing to a group of study sites
in close proximity or to use the geographical range and to interview by telephone. We made the decision
to try to recruit women from a range of centres from across the country, as we considered this to be more
reflective of the whole study. Finally, as no previous qualitative study has been conducted on women’s
experience of OPH, it was not possible to verify our findings by embedding them within existing literature.
1. In view of the level of pain and distress experienced by some women, the development of ‘see
and treat’ clinics and the option of an anaesthetic should be available if this is patient choice.
2. Patients need information about taking pain relief before the procedure, and the most appropriate
analgesia to take. Top-up analgesia should be available during the procedure if necessary.
3. A dedicated rest area could be made available for patients who find the procedure painful
and distressing.
4. The presence of a support nurse who is not part of the team carrying out the procedure
was unanimously appreciated and should be considered good practice.
5. An information leaflet needs to contain information about what to expect from the procedure
(quotes from previous patients are useful), pain relief, who will receive biopsy results, what to expect
post procedure in terms of pain and bleeding, and returning to normal activities, work, resuming sexual
activity) and who to contact if complications occur.
6. Further qualitative research should be conducted into the experience of undergoing OPH and similar
gynaecological procedures.
Conclusion
The value of a qualitative study within a RCT is that it provides an additional type of data, and allows
participants the opportunity to raise issues of importance to them, rather than those set by the research
team. This research compared two treatment settings and procedures for a condition, uterine polyps,
which causes inconvenience rather than major disruption to life. As such for most women a service
that offers a timely and sensitive treatment, with a quick return to normal life is the optimum choice.
For the majority of women in this study this was provided by ‘see and treat’, but for a minority this was
not an acceptable option.
92
Chapter 7 Discussion
A bnormal uterine bleeding is the commonest presentation in gynaecological practice affecting
women of all ages. Symptoms have a significant adverse impact upon HRQL. The high disease
burden associated with HMB, IMB and PMB places substantial demands upon health services, utilising
scarce health-care resources. Uterine polyps are focal endometrial lesions and, along with fibroids,
are the commonest uterine pathologies encountered in association with AUB, and their removal appears
to alleviate bleeding symptoms as well as provide tissue for histological assessment. Uterine polyps are
being increasingly diagnosed with the advent of better imaging modalities, including the gold standard
diagnostic test of OPH, a test that has become widely available within the NHS in recent years with
the establishment of ambulatory gynaecological services. In contrast with most uterine fibroids, polyps
are amenable to minimally invasive treatment, being easily accessible from within the uterine cavity such
that they can be extracted without the need for extensive surgery.
The conventional approach to uterine polypectomy involves scheduled admission to hospital so that formal
theatre facilities can be used to conduct the operation under general anaesthesia. Advances in technology,
including the development of miniature endoscopic equipment and enhanced imaging, has facilitated
the notion of outpatient ‘outpatient-based’ therapeutic surgical interventions. The high prevalence
and accessibility of uterine polyps, combined with relative simplicity of uterine polypectomy, has resulted
in several hysteroscopy units developing routine outpatient polypectomy among other gynaecological
procedures. However, most hospitals restrict OPH services to diagnosis, limiting the technique’s potential
utility. The lack of consensus arises from a lack of high-quality evidence to support such service
developments. Although it is generally recognised that outpatient intervention is convenient for
patients, the avoidance of general anaesthesia means that uterine polypectomy may be very painful
and unacceptable to many women. Furthermore, the limitations placed upon intrauterine surgery in
the conscious patient, which include noxious pain stimuli and problems with access and manipulation
of miniature hysteroscopic equipment, may translate into reduced feasibility and poorer clinical outcomes.
However, even if the latter were proven, the advantages to women of outpatient intervention, in terms
of safety, convenience and efficiency, may counterbalance any inferiority in clinical effectiveness. In
addition to these considerations, the inflated cost of miniaturised technologically advanced equipment
required for most outpatient procedures combined with the potential for poorer clinical outcomes may
offset the efficiency of outpatient polypectomy even when it is performed immediately following diagnosis
at OPH – the ‘see and treat’ approach. Thus, we identified a pressing need to evaluate the effectiveness,
acceptability and cost-effectiveness of OPT.
Evidence of effectiveness
The results of this trial demonstrate that outpatient polypectomy was non-inferior to inpatient
polypectomy for the successful alleviation of AUB when compared with our prespecified non-inferiority
margin of 25%. Polypectomy successfully treated AUB in 73% (166/228) of the women in the outpatient
group compared with 80% (168/211) in the inpatient group (equivalent to a NNTH of ‘6’ at the lower end
of the 95% CI) at 6 months with no evidence of interaction of type of bleeding, location or type of polyp
with treatment allocation.
The OPT study has shown that the outpatient surgical treatment of uterine polyps is non-inferior
to traditional inpatient treatment under general anaesthesia for the successful alleviation of AUB. The
removal of these focal pathologies was associated with symptomatic control in three-quarters of women
at 6 months, and treatment outcomes were maintained at 12 and 24 months. The relative effectiveness
of treatment was observed whether the presenting complaint was HMB, IMB or PMB. A significant
improvement in generic and disease-specific HRQL was seen after polypectomy in both treatment groups
at 6, 12 and 24 months, with no differences observed according to treatment setting.
93
SO16 7NS, UK.
DISCUSSION
Outpatient polypectomy was successfully completed in four out of five women, but failure to complete
polyp removal was two and a half times more likely in the conscious patient than in traditional inpatient
treatment, i.e. for every nine outpatient polypectomies performed an additional one procedure will fail
compared with inpatient treatment. Technical failure to remove polyps in the outpatient setting was
associated with patient discomfort. It is interesting to note that over the 2-year follow-up period, women
treated in the outpatients were twice as likely to have at least one further polyp removal and 1.6 times
more likely to have further gynaecological surgery. These observations may imply reduced effectiveness
of outpatient compared with inpatient polypectomy. Alternatively, women undergoing treatment as an
outpatient may have been more willing to seek referral and treatment for ongoing or new gynaecological
problems because of the perceived convenience of their initial experience.
The most common perioperative side effect associated with outpatient polypectomy was induced fainting,
i.e. vasovagal reactions arising from cervical stimulation. These affected 7% (17/241) of women but were
short-lived and self-limiting. No major complications occurred in the outpatient setting but there were four
uterine perforations reported in the inpatient general anaesthetic group, resulting in a pelvic haematoma
requiring hospitalisation in one patient and an inadvertent bowel injury necessitating laparotomy, bowel
resection and high-dependency unit care in another. Thus, although rare, the potential for trauma
remains and the sequelae can be potentially life-threatening. It is for this reason that many recommend
polypectomy under direct visualisation using hysteroscopic methods.32,81,84,107,128 It is possible that the
likelihood of unrecognised injury is greater where conventional, more traumatic blind techniques using
larger mechanical equipment are adopted in an unconscious inpatient. Such approaches were observed
much less frequently in the outpatient treatment group of the OPT Trial.
Evidence of cost-effectiveness
The OPT study showed inpatient polypectomy was more expensive than outpatient treatment and
marginally more effective, resulting in slightly higher self-reported effectiveness and QALY values at 6
and 12 months. The differences in costs and outcomes between these procedures are fairly constant at
these time points, reflecting that the treatment has very few long-term (i.e. beyond 6 months) implications
on health and resource use. The ICERs obtained by cost-effectiveness and CUA were very high, reflecting
the equivalence in effectiveness between these procedures.
Although the mean estimates of outcomes appeared to favour inpatient treatment, it is important to note
that there was considerable uncertainty around these point estimates. This was explored further using PSA,
clearly demonstrating that although outpatient therapy is definitely cheaper than inpatient treatment,
the effectiveness estimates are uncertain with the likelihood of effectiveness being roughly equal at 6
and 12 months in both groups. A range of cost variations that were considered plausible during the
implementation of these treatment pathways within the NHS were considered. However, these did not
make a difference to the conclusions from the base-case analysis.
Outpatient polypectomy is a cost-effective procedure and should be recommended as best use of limited
NHS resources in patients with AUB due to uterine polyps.
Evidence of acceptability
The OPT study showed that when women were willing to take part but had a preference for treatment,
> 80% (324/299) chose to have the treatment awake as an outpatient. Perioperative pain scores were
within the mid-range as measured on a 100-mm scale, consistent with other less invasive common
gynaecological diagnostic tests, such as endometrial biopsy or hysteroscopy. Furthermore, outpatient
procedures were short, with a mean recorded duration of 10 minutes. Although pain scores were slightly
higher postoperatively and on discharge from hospital the clinical significance of this is negligible given
94
that pain intensity was low in both groups, the recorded differences minimal and time to discharge was
much quicker in the outpatient treatment group. Procedure acceptability was measured using quantitative
and qualitative measures. When asked on a four-point ordinal scale regarding the degree of acceptability,
there was a significant trend in favour of conventional inpatient treatment in both the randomised
and observational preference studies. However, only 2% (5/225) of women in either group considered
the treatment unacceptable. Similarly, although the proportion of women within the RCT willing to
recommend their treatment or undergo it again favoured inpatient treatment under anaesthesia, at least
90% (200/223) of women having experienced outpatient polypectomy answered positively to these
two questions.
Undertaking a qualitative study enabled us to look beyond the satisfaction data collected by the use of
Likert scales and allowed for more nuanced responses. It also provided information on acceptability a week
after treatment when reflection on the process and recovery time could be incorporated into their replies.
Exploring acceptability and patient experience by semistructured interviews revealed that women valued
expeditious treatment and saw the immediacy and convenience of ‘see and treat’ outpatient treatment
as a proportionate response to resolving their problem. Women considered the rapid discharge and return
to normal activities associated with outpatient treatment as an advantage. Most women expected to
experience pain but few women expressed feeling anxious preoperatively. However, some women
expressed the view that invasive treatment, although awake, was unacceptable for a minority of women,
and choice of treatment setting should be available.
Polyps are the commonest intrauterine pathology found in association with AUB in women of all ages.
The findings from this trial showed that OPT is a safe, feasible, and acceptable setting to treat these focal
lesions. Moreover, the effectiveness of outpatient surgical treatment to alleviate the common types
of AUB – namely HMB, IMB and PMB – was not inferior to conventional inpatient therapy. The costs of
outpatient polypectomy were substantially lower than inpatient treatment so that OPT was highly
cost-effective in comparison. Thus, it is self-evident that the current situation – through which the majority
of NHS providers of gynaecological services are unable to routinely offer women the choice of outpatient
surgical treatment for symptomatic uterine polyps – is unsustainable. Diagnostic OPH facilities are widely
available within most NHS hospitals. However, investment in endoscopic technologies including capital
outlay for appropriate camera stacks, energy modalities and operative hysteroscopes would be necessary,
and provision should be made for purchasing disposable ancillary devices and repairing or replacing
relatively fragile, precision instrumentation. Therefore, some financial outlay is likely to be required and
outpatient facilities may have capacity constraints but the cost-effectiveness of OPT compared with
conventional inpatient approaches should influence future investment in this direction.
Contemporary health service development needs to take into account the views of patients; the demand
for the outpatient setting as demonstrated in recruitment to the OPT preference study further supports
the clinical and economic argument for change. In addition to developing modern diagnostic and
therapeutic ‘ambulatory units’ within hospitals, providers should consider the possibility of setting up or
expanding community-based services, which may be more convenient to service users and potentially
more cost-effective. Additional training will be necessary for many practitioners to become competent in
therapeutic procedures such as polypectomy, but given the familiarity to gynaecologists of diagnostic OPH
and the relative simplicity of the procedure, proficiency in uterine polypectomy should be quickly acquired.
The safety and convenience of outpatient treatment and the equivalent effectiveness in alleviating AUB
symptoms should be counterbalanced with (1) increased probability of failing to complete the procedure;
(2) perioperative pain and (3) reduced acceptability in the conscious outpatient compared with the
anaesthetised inpatient. Thus, women should be informed that outpatient intervention is quick but
associated with pain of generally moderate intensity. They should be made aware that there is a trend
95
SO16 7NS, UK.
DISCUSSION
to greater acceptability with inpatient treatment under anaesthesia, although the vast majority of
women undergoing the outpatient intervention will consider it acceptable. Women should be offered a
choice of treatment setting and practitioners need to recognise that a minority of women will prefer
general anaesthesia regardless. We should not lose sight of the fact that technological advancement
in instrumentation is ongoing and, indeed, technologies are now available that, for example,
simultaneously cut and aspirate polyp tissue. This appears to lessen intraoperative times, reduce pain
levels and enhance acceptability (P Smith and TJ Clark, Birmingham Women’s Hospital, 2013, personal
communication). Other interventions designed to optimise the patient experience with particular regard
to combating pain are under evaluation, such as the use of new topical anaesthetic agents and the role
of intrauterine hysteroscopic injection of local anaesthetic. In addition to technical innovations, patient
selection, i.e. better identification of women who are more likely to have an adverse experience, should
further improve qualitative outcomes.
The results of this work should inform the consenting process so that contemporary written material and
counselling is succinct, valid and relevant, and patients acquire realistic expectations of the likely outpatient
treatment experience. The provision of timely written and verbal information is therefore of prime
importance to allow women to make an informed choice, especially when ‘see and treat’ approaches
to diagnosis and treatment are to be offered.
The desire for convenient and rapid outpatient interventions to resolve commonly encountered conditions
that currently necessitate traditional inpatient surgery under general anaesthesia within formal operating
theatre environments is unlikely to be restricted to AUB complaints in women. In gynaecology and
other surgical disciplines, technology and patient expectations will drive the development of outpatient
diagnostic and treatment services. Robust health technology assessments such as the OPT Trial should
ensure that ambulatory intervention is not developed as a ‘cheap’ alternative to conventional practices
but rather as a better way of managing common conditions in terms of effectiveness, convenience
and acceptability.
Recommendations for research
Ongoing technological advances in surgical and endoscopic instrumentation are likely to further increase
the feasibility and acceptability of ambulatory gynaecological interventions, including outpatient uterine
polypectomy. Head-to-head RCTs should be conducted to delineate the optimal surgical approach and
identify the best technologies in terms of feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness. Examples may include
hysteroscopic morcellation compared with mechanical resection and electrical resection of uterine polyps,
and evaluation of specimen retrieval methods, for example polyp snares compared with hysteroscopic
graspers and morcellation.
The clinical significance of uterine polyps has been questioned. An estimated 10% of asymptomatic
women are found to have uterine polyps. Most polyps are benign and many spontaneously regress.
Although there are data compiled from systematic reviews of the published literature showing
improvement in AUB symptoms following polypectomy, the primary data sources are generally small
observational series. In the case of subfertility, data to support polypectomy to improve fertility
outcomes are even scarcer. Thus a RCT comparing uterine polypectomy with expectant management
may be warranted for the treatment of abnormal bleeding (stratified by bleeding pattern) and subfertility.
Such studies should be designed with adequate assessment and surveillance procedures in the
non-treatment groups and preliminary feasibility studies would be needed in light of previously reported
problems with recruitment. The aetiology of uterine polyps is unclear but hormonal effects on the
endometrium are likely to be involved. Thus, research comparing hormonal regulation/suppression of the
endometrium on polyp regression, recurrence and associated bleeding symptoms should be considered, for
example a RCT of uterine surgical polypectomy compared with the LNG-IUS in AUB. Prospective, long-term
follow-up studies should aid a better understanding of the nature and natural history of uterine polyps in
96
symptomatic and asymptomatic women; outcomes to assess could include polyp recurrence, symptomatic
recurrence and risk of premalignancy/malignancy. Outpatient intrauterine surgery for many common,
benign gynaecological conditions is limited by perioperative pain, overall patient tolerance and, ultimately,
the acceptability of such interventions. Research into further refinements designed to examine and
optimise patient experience is required. In addition to RCTs aimed at identifying the best surgical
techniques, other trials should be designed to evaluate approaches to minimising pain and enhancing
recovery and acceptability. Interventions including the use of targeted, local paracervical or intrauterine
anaesthesia, variations in analgesic or sedative regimens and alterations in distension media delivery,
for example temperature and pressure, should be undertaken. Examples may include warming saline
distension media to body temperature compared with room temperature; vaginoscopic ‘no touch’
hysteroscopic surgery compared with instrumenting the lower genital tract; paracervical compared with
intracervical and intrauterine local anaesthesia; inhalational conscious sedation (nitric oxide) compared with
placebo; musical distraction compared with standard environment. Furthermore, observational studies
are needed to identify clinical factors, for example patient characteristics, and anatomic, surgical and
pathological indicators that are predictive of poor patient experience with outpatient surgery.
Inside gynaecological practice and other surgical disciplines, technology and patient expectations will drive
the development of convenient and rapid outpatient interventions to resolve commonly encountered
conditions that currently necessitate traditional inpatient surgery under general anaesthesia within formal
operating theatre environments. Thus, further RCTs, similar to the OPT Trial, should be conducted to
evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such practices, for example outpatient hysteroscopic
sterilisation compared with day-case laparoscopic sterilisation (gynaecology), and outpatient varicose vein
treatments compared with day-case varicose vein surgery (general surgery).
97
SO16 7NS, UK.
Acknowledgements
W e thank all of the collaborating investigators who form part of the OPT collaborating group.
Barnsley District General Hospital, South Yorkshire: C Bonner, K Cannon, KA Farag, K Raychaudhuri,
M Reid, A Zahid.
Birmingham Heartlands/Solihull Hospital, Birmingham: Jan Blunn, S Guruswami, S Irani, D Robinson.
Birmingham Women’s Hospital, Birmingham: T Bingham, TJ Clark, N Cooper, J Gupta, S Madari, D Mellers,
S O’Connor, C O’Hara, M Pathak, V Preece, E Sangha, M Shehmar, P Trinham, A Wilson.
Bishop Auckland General Hospital, County Durham: J Dent, J Macdonald, P Sengupta.
Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Blackpool: C Brookes, J Davies.
Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford: M Jackson, S Jones, H Ludkin, S Riddiough.
Castle Hill Hospital, East Yorkshire: J Allen, T Cathcart, D Cox, S Ford, L Kenny, K Phillips, N Rawal,
A Rodgers, J Siddiqui.
Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, London: A Dine-Atkinson, S Kalkur, G Merriner, J Ben-Nagi, A Raza,
R Richardson.
City General Hospital, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke-on Trent: T Bingham, I Hassan.
City Hospital, Sunderland: D Edmundson, J Chamberlain, A Barge, P Wake, D Milford, E Walton.
Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester: S Arnold, M Blake, MJ McCormack, N Naddad, J Hane, S Wood.
Kidderminster Hospital, Worcester: M Labib, T Martin, S Moss, M Pathak.
Liverpool Women’s Hospital, Liverpool: N Aziz, L Harris, D Pattison.
Manor Hospital, Walsall: J Pepper.
Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton: M Escott, G Fender.
New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton: M Saeed.
Newham University Hospital, Plaistow: A Antoniou, R Chenoy.
Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich: E Morris, M Sule.
Ormskirk & District General Hospital, Southport: A Cope, S Sharma, T Taylor
Queen Charlotte’s & Chelsea Hospital, London: N Panay, C Rothan.
Queen’s Hospital, Romford: A Coker.
Royal Blackburn Hospital, Blackburn: M Abdel-Aty, K Bhatia, S Gardiner, W Myint, M Willett.
99
SO16 7NS, UK.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield: V Brown, C Bonner, M Connor, S Stillwell.
Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh: A Horne, S Milne, J Rowan.
Sandwell General Hospital, West Midlands: A Ewies, J Kabukoba.
Shotley Bridge Hospital, County Durham: J Dent, P Sengupta.
St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester: R Biancardi, K Donnelly, L Dwyer, K Naidoo, I Pinton.
Stafford Hospital, Stafford: K Chin, T Harrison, J Roger, D Sirdefield, J Stacey.
Royal Oldham Hospital, Oldham: Z Anjum, N Aziz.
The Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne: J Bainbridge, G Cosgrove, A Desai, J Gebbie,
D Koleskas, P Ranka, M Roberts.
Whiston Hospital, Merseyside: C Cunningham, C Nwosu.
We thank the members of the TSC for their assistance throughout the project: Professor J Thornton
(Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Nottingham) – chairperson, Professor P O’Donovan
(Professor of Medical Innovation and Gynaecology, University of Bradford); E Nicholls (Birmingham
Women’s Hospital, Consumer); Professor J Deeks (University of Birmingham, Statistician); and Dr S Petrou
(University of Oxford, Health Economist).
We thank the members of the Data Monitoring Committee for their assistance throughout the project:
Professor M Lumsden (Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Glasgow) – chairperson,
Professor S Bhattacharya (Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Aberdeen);
and Dr C Cummins (Paediatric epidemiologist, University of Birmingham and Birmingham Children’s
Foundation Trust).
The OPT Trial was coordinated by the Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit and we acknowledge the hard
work of all of the staff involved in the study, especially the trial coordinators – Elizabeth Brettell (2008),
Laura Gennard, Lisa Leighton and Nicholas Hilken (database programmer) – and Edward Tyler,
who designed and developed the on-line randomisation and trial database.
We thank all of the Principal Investigators and the many sites (see Appendix 30) and the Clinical Local
Research Network (CLRN)-funded research nurses. A special thank you to Tracy Bingham, trial-funded
research nurse (2008–11) for recruiting, activating and supporting collaborating centres.
We thank Professor Richard Grey (Professor of Medical Statistics, Clinical Trial Service Unit, University
of Oxford) for his input into the statistical and methodological aspects of the original OPT Trial protocol,
and Professor Khalid Khan (Professor of Women’s Health and Clinical Epidemiology Queen Mary’s,
University of London) and Professor Janesh Gupta (Professor of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of
Birmingham) for their input into the design of the pilot RCT and development of the final trial protocol.
We thank the National Institute for Health Research HTA programme for funding the OPT Trial.
We thank the women who took part in the OPT Trial; without their participation none of this work would
have been possible.
100
Contribution of authors
Dr T Justin Clark (Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist and Honorary Reader in Obstetrics
& Gynaecology) was the Chief Investigator for the study and was involved in the design, management,
analysis of results and overall responsibility for writing the report. He was responsible for writing
Chapters 1–4 and 7.
Lee J Middleton (Senior Statistician, Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit) contributed to the design and
conduct of the overall study and performed the statistical analysis of the RCT and preference study. He
contributed to the drafting and reviewing of all of the sections of the final report.
Dr Natalie AM Cooper (Clinical Research Fellow and Specialist Registrar on Obstetrics & Gynaecology)
was the research fellow for the trial (2008–11), managed the trial, was involved in data collection, analysis
of results and writing the report.
Dr Lavanya Diwakar (Research Fellow Health Economics) performed the health economics analysis
and wrote Chapter 5.
Professor Elaine Denny (Professor of Health Sociology) was the supervisor for the qualitative work,
was involved in qualitative data analysis and co-wrote Chapter 6.
Dr Paul Smith (Clinical Research Fellow and Specialist Registrar on Obstetrics & Gynaecology)
was the research fellow for the trial (2011–12), and was involved in data collection and writing the report.
Laura Gennard (Trial Coordinator from 2008) had overall responsibility for the management of the trial.
Lynda Stobert (Health Sociology) undertook the patient interviews as part of the qualitative work,
was involved in qualitative data analysis and co-wrote Chapter 6.
Professor Tracy E Roberts (Professor of Health Services Research) supervised the health economics
research and co-wrote Chapter 5.
Versha Cheed (Trainee Statistician, Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit) helped to carry out the preparation of
the data for the RCT and preference study. She performed the statistical analysis of the pilot study.
Tracey Bingham (Research Nurse) was the research nurse for the trial, was involved in data collection
and assisted with recruitment.
Dr Sue Jowett (Health Economics) supervised the health economics research and co-wrote Chapter 5.
Elizabeth Brettell (Trial Coordinator, 2008) was responsible for the management of the trial in 2008.
Mary Connor (Consultant Gynaecologist) provided clinical advice, recruited to the trial and was involved
in critical revision of the report.
Professor Sian E Jones (Professor of Gynaecology) provided clinical advice, recruited to the trial and was
involved in critical revision of the report.
Dr Jane P Daniels (Co-Director Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit) was involved in the trial design
and management, and critical revision of the report.
101
SO16 7NS, UK.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Publications
Cooper NAM, Clark TJ, Middleton L, Diwakar L, Smith P, Denny E, et al. Outpatient versus inpatient
uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding: randomised controlled non-inferiority study.
BMJ 2015;350:h1398. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1398
Diwakar L, Roberts TE, Cooper NAM, Middleton L, Jowett S, Daniels J, et al. An economic evaluation
of outpatient versus inpatient polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding. BJOG 2015; in press.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13434
Cooper NAM, Middleton L, Smith P, Denny E, Stobert L, Daniels J, et al. A patient-preference cohort study of
office versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding. Gynecol Surg 2015; submitted.
102
References
1. Fox H, Buckley H. Gynaecological and Obstetric Pathology for the MRCOG. London:
RCOG Press; 1998.
2. Kim K-R, Peng R, Ro JY, Robboy SJ. A diagnostically useful histopathologic feature of endometrial
polyp: the long axis of endometrial glands arranged parallel to surface epithelium. Am J Surg
Pathol 2004;28:1057–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000128659.73944.f3
3. Lopes RGC, Baracat EC, de Albuquerque Neto LC, Ramos JFD, Yatabe S, Depesr DB, et al.
Analysis of estrogen- and progesterone-receptor expression in endometrial polyps. J Minim
Invasive Gynecol 2007;14:300–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2006.10.022
4. Sant’Ana de Almeida EC, Nogueira AA, Candido dos Reis FJ, Zambelli Ramalho LN, Zucoloto S.
Immunohistochemical expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in endometrial
polyps and adjacent endometrium in postmenopausal women. Maturitas 2004;49:229–33.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2004.02.009
5. Lima G, Girão M. Pólipos uterinos. In: Lima GR, Girão MJB, Baracat EC, editors. Ginecologia de
Consultório. São Paulo: EPM; 2003. pp. 243–6.
6. Mittal K, Schwartz L, Goswami S, Demopoulos R. Estrogen and progesterone receptor
expression in endometrial polyps. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1996;15:345–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/
00004347-199610000-00007
7. Taylor LJ, Jackson TL, Reid JG, Duffy SRG. The differential expression of oestrogen receptors,
progesterone receptors, Bcl-2 and Ki67 in endometrial polyps. BJOG 2003;110:794–8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2003.02098.x
8. Thijs I, Neven P, Van Hooff I, Tonglet R, Van Belle Y, De Muylder X, et al. Oestrogen and progesterone
receptor expression in postmenopausal endometrial polyps and their surrounding endometrium.
Eur J Cancer 2000;36(Suppl. 4):108–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00263-X
9. McGurgan P, Taylor LJ, Duffy SR, O’Donovan PJ. Are endometrial polyps from pre-menopausal
women similar to post-menopausal women? An immunohistochemical comparison of
endometrial polyps from pre- and post-menopausal women. Maturitas 2006 20;54:277–84.
10. Vanni R, Dal Cin P, Marras S, Moerman P, Andria M, Valdes E, et al. Endometrial polyp: another
benign tumor characterized by 12q13-q15 changes. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1993;68:32–3.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0165-4608(93)90070-3
11. Inceboz US, Nese N, Uyar Y, Ozcakir HT, Kurtul O, Baytur YB, et al. Hormone receptor expressions
and proliferation markers in postmenopausal endometrial polyps. Gynecol Obstet Invest
2006;61:24–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000088018
12. Grimes DA. Diagnostic dilation and curettage: a reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;142:1–6.
13. MacKenzie IZ, Bibby JG. Critical assessment of dilatation and curettage in 1029 women.
Lancet 1978;2:566–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(78)92895-7
14. Bettocchi S, Ceci O, Vicino M, Marello F, Impedovo L, Selvaggi L. Diagnostic inadequacy
of dilatation and curettage. Fertil Steril 2001;75:803–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(00)
01792-1
15. Svirsky R, Smorgick N, Rozowski U, Sagiv R, Feingold M, Halperin R, et al. Can we rely on blind
endometrial biopsy for detection of focal intrauterine pathology? Am J Obstet Gynecol
2008;199:115.e1–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.02.015
103
SO16 7NS, UK.
REFERENCES
16. Cooper NAM, Clark TJ. Cost-Effectiveness of Diagnostic Strategies for the Management
of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding (Heavy Menstrual Bleeding and Post-Menopausal Bleeding):
Systematic Reviews, IPD Meta-Analysis and Model Based Economic Evaluation. Health Technology
Appraisal programme. URL: www.hta.ac.uk/2145 (accessed 27 September 2013).
17. Clark TJ, Mann CH, Shah N, Khan KS, Song F, Gupta JK. Accuracy of outpatient endometrial
biopsy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer: a systematic quantitative review.
BJOG 2002;109:313–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01088.x
18. Dijkhuizen FP, Mol BW, Brölmann HA, Heintz AP. The accuracy of endometrial sampling
in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia: a meta-analysis.
Cancer 2000;89:1765–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20001015)89:8<1765::AID-
CNCR17>3.0.CO;2-F
19. Makris N, Skartados N, Kalmantis K, Mantzaris G, Papadimitriou A, Antsaklis A. Evaluation
of abnormal uterine bleeding by transvaginal 3-D hysterosonography and diagnostic
hysteroscopy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2007;28:39–42.
20. Gimpelson RJ, Rappold HO. A comparative study between panoramic hysteroscopy with directed
biopsies and dilatation and curettage. A review of 276 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol
1988;158:489–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(88)90011-7
21. Clark TJ. Outpatient hysteroscopy and ultrasonography in the management of endometrial
disease. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2004;16:305–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.gco.
0000136491.26463.c2
22. Farquhar C, Ekeroma A, Furness S, Arroll B. A systematic review of transvaginal ultrasonography,
sonohysterography and hysteroscopy for the investigation of abnormal uterine bleeding in
premenopausal women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003;82:493–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/
j.1600-0412.2003.00191.x
23. Van Dongen H, Janssen CAH, Smeets MJGH, Emanuel MH, Jansen FW. The clinical relevance
of hysteroscopic polypectomy in premenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding.
24. Bernard JP, Rizk E, Camatte S, Robin F, Taurelle R, Lecuru F. Saline contrast sonohysterography
in the preoperative assessment of benign intrauterine disorders. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
2001;17:145–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2001.00336.x
25. American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines
for the diagnosis and management of endometrial polyps. J Minim Invasive Gynecol
2012;19:3–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.09.003
26. Salim S, Won H, Nesbitt-Hawes E, Campbell N, Abbott J. Diagnosis and management
of endometrial polyps: a critical review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol
27. Jansen FW, de Kroon CD, van Dongen H, Grooters C, Louwé L, Trimbos-Kemper T. Diagnostic
hysteroscopy and saline infusion sonography: prediction of intrauterine polyps and myomas.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2006;13:320–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2006.03.018
28. De Kroon CD, de Bock GH, Dieben SWM, Jansen FW. Saline contrast hysterosonography
in abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2003;110:938–47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2003.02472.x
29. Van Dongen H, de Kroon CD, Jacobi CE, Trimbos JB, Jansen FW. Diagnostic hysteroscopy
in abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2007;114:664–75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01326.x
104
30. Clark TJ, Voit D, Gupta JK, Hyde C, Song F, Khan KS. Accuracy of hysteroscopy in the
diagnosis of endometrial cancer and hyperplasia: a systematic quantitative review. JAMA
2002;288:1610–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.13.1610
31. Jansen FW, Vredevoogd CB, van Ulzen K, Hermans J, Trimbos JB, Trimbos-Kemper TC.
Complications of hysteroscopy: a prospective, multicenter study. Obstet Gynecol
2000;96:266–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(00)00865-6
32. Clark TJ, Gupta JK. Handbook of Outpatient Hysteroscopy: A Complete Guide to Diagnosis
and Therapy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2005.
33. Van Dongen H, Timmermans A, Jacobi CE, Elskamp T, de Kroon CD, Jansen FW. Diagnostic
hysteroscopy and saline infusion sonography in the diagnosis of intrauterine abnormalities: an
assessment of patient preference. Gynecol Surg 2011;8:65–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10397-010-0649-1
34. Bain C, Parkin DE, Cooper KG. Is outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy more useful than
endometrial biopsy alone for the investigation of abnormal uterine bleeding in unselected
premenopausal women? A randomised comparison. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol
2002;109:805–11.
35. Widrich T, Bradley LD, Mitchinson AR, Collins RL. Comparison of saline infusion sonography
with office hysteroscopy for the evaluation of the endometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol
1996;174:1327–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70680-4
36. Dreisler E, Stampe Sorensen S, Ibsen PH, Lose G. Prevalence of endometrial polyps and abnormal
uterine bleeding in a Danish population aged 20–74 years. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
2009;33:102–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.6259
37. Fatemi HM, Kasius JC, Timmermans A, van Disseldorp J, Fauser BC, Devroey P, et al. Prevalence
of unsuspected uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by office hysteroscopy prior to in vitro
fertilization. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 2010;25:1959–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq150
38. De Ziegler D. Contrast ultrasound: a simple-to-use phase-shifting medium offers saline infusion
sonography-like images. Fertil Steril 2009;92:369–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.
04.032
39. Fay TN, Khanem N, Hosking D. Out-patient hysteroscopy in asymptomatic postmenopausal
women. Climacteric J Int Menopause Soc 1999;2:263–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/
13697139909038086
40. Reslová T, Tosner J, Resl M, Kugler R, Vávrová I. Endometrial polyps. A clinical study of 245 cases.
Arch Gynecol Obstet 1999;262:133–9.
41. Cohen I. Endometrial pathologies associated with postmenopausal tamoxifen treatment.
Gynecol Oncol 2004;94:256–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.03.048
42. Chalas E, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N, Lewis GC, Bergman C, et al.
Benign gynecologic conditions among participants in the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial.
Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1230–7; discussion 1237–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ajog.2004.12.083
43. Bakour SH, Khan KS, Gupta JK. The risk of premalignant and malignant pathology in endometrial
polyps. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002;8:182–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0412.2002.
810220.x
44. Perrone G, DeAngelis C, Critelli C, Capri O, Galoppi P, Santoro G, et al. Hysteroscopic findings
in postmenopausal abnormal uterine bleeding: a comparison between HRT users and non-users.
Maturitas 2002;43:251–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5122(02)00272-4
105
SO16 7NS, UK.
REFERENCES
45. Clark TJ, Khan KS, Gupta JK. Current practice for the treatment of benign intrauterine polyps:
a national questionnaire survey of consultant gynaecologists in UK. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod
Biol 2002;103:65–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00011-8
46. DeWaay DJ, Syrop CH, Nygaard IE, Davis WA, Van Voorhis BJ. Natural history of uterine polyps
and leiomyomata. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:3–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(02)
02007-0
47. Lieng M, Istre O, Sandvik L, Qvigstad E. Prevalence, 1-year regression rate, and clinical significance
of asymptomatic endometrial polyps: cross-sectional study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol
48. Orvieto R, Bar-Hava I, Dicker D, Bar J, Ben-Rafael Z, Neri A. Endometrial polyps during
menopause: characterization and significance. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78:883–6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/j.1600-0412.1999.781009.x
49. Savelli L, De Iaco P, Santini D, Rosati F, Ghi T, Pignotti E, et al. Histopathologic features and risk
factors for benignity, hyperplasia, and cancer in endometrial polyps. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2003;188:927–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mob.2003.247
50. Ben-Arie A, Goldchmit C, Laviv Y, Levy R, Caspi B, Huszar M, et al. The malignant potential
of endometrial polyps. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004;115:206–10. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.02.002
51. Anastasiadis PG, Koutlaki NG, Skaphida PG, Galazios GC, Tsikouras PN, Liberis VA. Endometrial
polyps: prevalence, detection, and malignant potential in women with abnormal uterine bleeding.
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2000;21:180–3.
52. Shushan A, Revel A, Rojansky N. How often are endometrial polyps malignant? Gynecol Obstet
Invest 2004;58:212–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000080189
53. Antunes A Jr, Costa-Paiva L, Arthuso M, Costa JV, Pinto-Neto AM. Endometrial polyps in pre- and
postmenopausal women: factors associated with malignancy. Maturitas 2007;57:415–21.
54. Gregoriou O, Konidaris S, Vrachnis N, Bakalianou K, Salakos N, Papadias K, et al. Clinical
parameters linked with malignancy in endometrial polyps. Climacteric J Int Menopause Soc
2009;12:454–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13697130902912605
55. Wang J-H, Zhao J, Lin J. Opportunities and risk factors for premalignant and malignant
transformation of endometrial polyps: management strategies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol
56. Ferrazzi E, Zupi E, Leone FP, Savelli L, Omodei U, Moscarini M, et al. How often are endometrial
polyps malignant in asymptomatic postmenopausal women? A multicenter study. Am J Obstet
Gynecol 2009;200:235.e1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.09.876
57. Kedar RP, Bourne TH, Powles TJ, Collins WP, Ashley SE, Cosgrove DO, et al. Effects of tamoxifen
on uterus and ovaries of postmenopausal women in a randomised breast cancer prevention trial.
Lancet 1994;343:1318–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(94)92466-X
58. Kurman RJ, McConnell TG. Precursors of endometrial and ovarian carcinoma. Virchows Arch Int J
Pathol 2010;456:1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00428-009-0824-9
59. Lieng M, Istre O, Qvigstad E. Treatment of endometrial polyps: a systematic review. Acta Obstet
Gynecol Scand 2010;89:992–1002. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016349.2010.493196
60. Lee SC, Kaunitz AM, Sanchez-Ramos L, Rhatigan RM. The oncogenic potential of endometrial
polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1197–205.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f74864
106
61. Warner P, Critchley HOD, Lumsden MA, Campbell-Brown M, Douglas A, Murray G. Referral for
menstrual problems: cross sectional survey of symptoms, reasons for referral, and management.
BMJ 2001;323:24–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7303.24
62. Coulter A, Long A, Kelland J, O’Meara S, Sculpher M, Song F, et al. Managing menorrhagia.
Qual Heal Care 1995;4:218–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qshc.4.3.218
63. CG44 N. Heavy Menstrual Bleeding. Clinical Guideline No. 44. National Collaborating Centre for
Women’s and Children’s Health Commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Clinical
Excellence. London: RCOG Press; 2007.
64. Coulter A, Noone A, Goldacre M. General practitioners’ referrals to specialist outpatient clinics.
I. Why general practitioners refer patients to specialist outpatient clinics. BMJ 1989;299:304–6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.299.6694.304
65. Bhattacharya S, Middleton LJ, Tsourapas A, Lee AJ, Champaneria R, Daniels JP, et al.
Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation and Mirena® for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic
review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2011;15(9).
66. Shapley M, Blagojevic-Bucknall M, Jordan K, Croft P. The epidemiology of self-reported
intermenstrual and postcoital bleeding in the perimenopausal years. BJOG 2013;120:1348–55.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12218
67. Office for National Statistics (ONS). Key Health Statistics from General Practice: Analyses
of Morbidity and Treatment Data, including Time Trends, England and Wales. London: ONS;
1998. URL: www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Key_Health_Stats_1998.pdf
(accessed 6 October 2013).
68. Gull B, Karlsson B, Milsom I, Granberg S. Can ultrasound replace dilation and curettage?
A longitudinal evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding and transvaginal sonographic
measurement of the endometrium as predictors of endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol
69. Gardner FJ, Konje JC, Abrams KR, Brown LJ, Khanna S, Al-Azzawi F, et al. Endometrial
protection from tamoxifen-stimulated changes by a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system:
a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000;356:1711–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736
(00)03204-9
70. Clevenger-Hoeft M, Syrop CH, Stovall DW, Van Voorhis BJ. Sonohysterography in premenopausal
women with and without abnormal bleeding. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:516–20. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00345-2
71. Elfayomy AK, Habib FA, Alkabalawy MA. Role of hysteroscopy in the detection of endometrial
pathologies in women presenting with postmenopausal bleeding and thickened endometrium.
Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;285:839–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2068-6
72. Munro MG, Critchley HOD, Fraser IS. The FIGO systems for nomenclature and classification
of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years: who needs them? Am J Obstet
Gynecol 2012;207:259–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.046
73. Timmermans A, Opmeer BC, Veersema S, Mol BWJ. Patients’ preferences in the evaluation
of postmenopausal bleeding. BJOG 2007;114:1146–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.
2007.01424.x
74. Department of Health (DH). Hospital Episode Statistics – 2011/12. Ungrossed Data.
URL: www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID = 1937&categoryID = 215
(accessed 9 August 2013).
107
SO16 7NS, UK.
REFERENCES
75. Lieng M, Istre O, Sandvik L, Engh V, Qvigstad E. Clinical effectiveness of transcervical polyp
resection in women with endometrial polyps: randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive
Gynecol 2010;17:351–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.01.019
76. Timmermans A, Veersema S, van Kerkvoorde TC, van der Voet LF, Opmeer BC, Bongers MY,
et al. Should endometrial polyps be removed in patients with postmenopausal bleeding? An
assessment of study designs and report of a failed randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN73825127).
77. Vercellini P, Trespidi L, Bramante T, Panazza S, Mauro F, Crosignani PG. Gonadotropin releasing
hormone agonist treatment before hysteroscopic endometrial resection. Int J Gynaecol Obstet
1994;45:235–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0020-7292(94)90248-8
78. Oguz S, Sargin A, Kelekci S, Aytan H, Tapisiz OL, Mollamahmutoglu L. The role of hormone
replacement therapy in endometrial polyp formation. Maturitas 2005;50:231–6.
79. Gardner FJE, Konje JC, Bell SC, Abrams KR, Brown LJR, Taylor DJ, et al. Prevention of tamoxifen
induced endometrial polyps using a levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system long-term
follow-up of a randomised control trial. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:452–6. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.06.014
80. Timmermans A, van Dongen H, Mol BW, Veersema S, Jansen FW. Hysteroscopy and removal
of endometrial polyps: a Dutch survey. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008;138:76–9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.05.016
81. Van Dijk LJEW, Breijer MC, Veersema S, Mol BWJ, Timmermans A. Current practice
in the removal of benign endometrial polyps: a Dutch survey. Gynecol Surg 2012;9:163–8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-011-0707-3
82. Loffer FD. Hysteroscopy with selective endometrial sampling compared with D&C for abnormal
uterine bleeding: the value of a negative hysteroscopic view. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73:16–20.
83. Moghal N. Diagnostic value of endometrial curettage in abnormal uterine bleeding:
a histopathological study. J Pak Med Assoc 1997;47:295–9.
84. Gebauer G, Hafner A, Siebzehnrübl E, Lang N. Role of hysteroscopy in detection and extraction
of endometrial polyps: results of a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:59–63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.108332
85. Bettocchi S, Ceci O, Nappi L, Di Venere R, Masciopinto V, Pansini V, et al. Operative office
hysteroscopy without anesthesia: analysis of 4863 cases performed with mechanical instruments.
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2004;11:59–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1074-3804(05)60012-6
86. Timmermans A, Veersema S. Ambulatory transcervical resection of polyps with the Duckbill polyp
snare: a modality for treatment of endometrial polyps. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2005;12:37–9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2004.12.014
87. Nathani F, Clark TJ. Uterine polypectomy in the management of abnormal uterine bleeding:
a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2006;13:260–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jmig.2006.03.015
88. Garuti G, Centinaio G, Luerti M. Outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy in postmenopausal
women: a comparison between mechanical and electrosurgical resection. J Minim Invasive
89. Magos AL, Baumann R, Lockwood GM, Turnbull AC. Experience with the first 250 endometrial
resections for menorrhagia. Lancet 1991;337:1074–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)
91718-A
108
90. Wamsteker K, Emanuel MH, de Kruif JH. Transcervical hysteroscopic resection of submucous
fibroids for abnormal uterine bleeding: results regarding the degree of intramural extension.
Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:736–40.
91. Preutthipan S, Herabutya Y. Hysteroscopic polypectomy in 240 premenopausal and
postmenopausal women. Fertil Steril 2005;83:705–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.
08.031
92. Cravello L, de Montgolfier R, D’Ercole C, Boubli L, Blanc B. Hysteroscopic surgery
in postmenopausal women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996;75:563–6. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3109/00016349609054672
93. Betjes HE, Hanstede MMF, Emanuel M-H, Stewart EA. Hysteroscopic myomectomy and case
volume hysteroscopic myomectomy performed by high- and low-volume surgeons.
J Reprod Med 2009;54:425–8.
94. Batra N, Khunda A, O’Donovan PJ. Hysteroscopic myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am
2004;31:669–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2004.06.003
95. Overton C, Hargreaves J, Maresh M. A national survey of the complications of endometrial
destruction for menstrual disorders: the MISTLETOE study. Minimally Invasive Surgical
Techniques–Laser, EndoThermal or Endorescetion. BJOG 1997;104:1351–9. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11003.x
96. Kung RC, Vilos GA, Thomas B, Penkin P, Zaltz AP, Stabinsky SA. A new bipolar system for
performing operative hysteroscopy in normal saline. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1999;6:331–6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1074-3804(99)80071-1
97. Clark TJ, Godwin J, Khan KS, Gupta JK. Ambulatory endoscopic treatment of symptomatic benign
endometrial polyps: feasibility study. Gynaecol Endosc 2002;11:91–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/
j.1365-2508.2002.00485.x
98. Vilos GA. Intrauterine surgery using a new coaxial bipolar electrode in normal saline solution
(Versapoint): a pilot study. Fertil Steril 1999;72:740–3.
99. Emanuel MH, Wamsteker K. The Intra Uterine Morcellator: a new hysteroscopic operating
technique to remove intrauterine polyps and myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2005;12:62–6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2004.12.011
100. Van Dongen H, Emanuel MH, Wolterbeek R, Trimbos J, Jansen FW. Hysteroscopic morcellator for
removal of intrauterine polyps and myomas: a randomized controlled pilot study among residents
in training. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15:466–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2008.
02.002
101. Nagele F, Mane S, Chandrasekaran P. How successful is hysteroscopic polypectomy?
Gynaecol Endosc 1996;5:137–40.
102. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.1.
London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184
103. Akers J, Agular-Ibáñez R, Baba-Akbari Sari A, Benyon S, Booth A. Systematic Reviews:
CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York: University of York, NHS Centre for
Reviews and Dissemination; 2009.
104. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al.
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement:
guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:344–9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
109
SO16 7NS, UK.
REFERENCES
105. AlHilli MM, Nixon KE, Hopkins MR, Weaver AL, Laughlin-Tommaso SK, Famuyide AO.
Long-term outcomes after intrauterine morcellation vs hysteroscopic resection of endometrial
polyps. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20:215–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.10.013
106. Barisic D, Strelec M, Velimir S. Operative hysteroscopy in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding
caused by benign intrauterine growths. Croat Med J 1995;36:275–7.
107. Brooks PG, Loffer FD, Serden SP. Resectoscopic removal of symptomatic intrauterine lesions.
J Reprod Med 1989;34:435–7.
108. Cravello L, Stolla V, Bretelle F, Roger V, Blanc B. Hysteroscopic resection of endometrial polyps:
a study of 195 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000;93:131–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0301-2115(00)00281-5
109. Henriquez DDCA, van Dongen H, Wolterbeek R, Jansen FW. Polypectomy in premenopausal
women with abnormal uterine bleeding: effectiveness of hysteroscopic removal. J Minim Invasive
110. Pace S. Transcervical resection of benign endocavitary lesions. Gynaecol Endosc 1993;2:165–9.
111. Polena V, Mergui J-L, Zérat L, Daraï E, Barranger E, Uzan S. [Long-term results of hysteroscopic
resection of endometrial polyps in 367 patients. Role of associated endometrial resection.]
Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertil 2005;33:382–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2005.04.021
112. Stamatellos I, Apostolides A, Stamatopoulos P, Bontis J. Pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic
polypectomy depending on the size or number of the polyps. Arch Gynecol Obstet
2008;277:395–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-007-0460-z
113. Timmermans A, van Doorn LC, Opmeer BC, Kroeks MVAM, Duk MJ, Bouwmeester AM, et al.
Follow-up of women after a first episode of postmenopausal bleeding and endometrial thickness
greater than 4 millimeters. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:137–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/
01.AOG.0000296654.43944.e6
114. Towbin NA, Gviazda IM, March CM. Office hysteroscopy versus transvaginal ultrasonography
in the evaluation of patients with excessive uterine bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol
1996;174:1678–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70196-5
115. Tjarks M, Van Voorhis BJ. Treatment of endometrial polyps. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:886–9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(00)01059-0
116. Clark TJ, Barton PM, Coomarasamy A, Gupta JK, Khan KS. Investigating postmenopausal bleeding
for endometrial cancer: cost-effectiveness of initial diagnostic strategies. BJOG 2006;113:502–10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00914.x
117. Feng L, Wang W, Zhang H, Zhu Y. [Clinical study of hysteroscopic surgery for endometrial polyps.]
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 2003;38:611–13.
118. Emanuel MH, Verdel MJ, Wamsteker K, Lammes FB. A prospective comparison of transvaginal
ultrasonography and diagnostic hysteroscopy in the evaluation of patients with abnormal uterine
bleeding: clinical implications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:547–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0002-9378(95)90571-5
119. Lurie S, Piper I, Woliovitch I, Glezerman M. Age-related prevalence of sonographically confirmed
uterine myomas. J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;25:42–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443610400024583
120. Gupta JK, Clark TJ, More S, Pattison H. Patient anxiety and experiences associated with
an outpatient ‘one-stop’ ‘see and treat’ hysteroscopy clinic. Surg Endosc 2004;18:1099–104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-9144-3
110
121. Clark TJ, Mahajan D, Sunder P, Bingham T, Khan KS, Gupta JK. What research should be done
in gynaecological endoscopy? A national questionnaire survey of members of the British Society
of Gynaecological Endoscopy. Gynaecol Endosc 2001;10:297–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/
j.1365-2508.2001.00465.x
122. Khan KS, Clark TJ. Future research on menorrhagia. In O’Donovan P, McGurgan P, editors.
Endometrial Ablation. London: Arnold; 2002.
123. Shaw RW, Brickley MR, Evans L, Edwards MJ. Perceptions of women on the impact
of menorrhagia on their health using multi-attribute utility assessment. BJOG 1998;105:1155–9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb09968.x
124. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group.
Ann Med 2001;33:337–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002087
125. Thirlaway K, Fallowfield L, Cuzick J. The Sexual Activity Questionnaire: a measure of women’s
sexual functioning. Qual Life Res 1996;5:81–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00435972
126. Clark TJ, Khan KS, Foon R, Pattison H, Bryan S, Gupta JK. Quality of life instruments in studies
of menorrhagia: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002;104:96–104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00076-3
127. Jones GL, Kennedy SH, Jenkinson C. Health-related quality of life measurement in women with
common benign gynecologic conditions: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol
128. Clark TJ, Mahajan D, Sunder P, Gupta JK. Hysteroscopic treatment of symptomatic submucous
fibroids using a bipolar intrauterine system: a feasibility study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol
2002;100:237–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(01)00485-7
129. Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, Hogg MI. The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain.
Anaesthesia 1976;31:1191–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1976.tb11971.x
130. Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM, Fisher LD. Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain
intensity measures. Pain 1999;83:157–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00101-3
131. Piaggio G, Pinol AP. Use of the equivalence approach in reproductive health clinical trials.
Stat Med 2001;20:3571–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.1078
132. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJW, Altman DG, CONSORT Group. Reporting
of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement.
JAMA 2012;308:2594–604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.87802
133. Verbeke G, Molenberghs G. Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data. New York:
Springer; 2009.
134. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010
explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
BMJ 2010;340:c869. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869
135. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, Stefanick ML, et al.
Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results
from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:321–33.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.3.321
136. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated
Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ 2013;346:f1049.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1049
137. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2012. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2012.
URL: http://kar.kent.ac.uk/32408/1/full-with-covers.pdf (accessed 26 September 2013).
111
SO16 7NS, UK.
REFERENCES
138. Department of Health (DH). Confirmation of Payment by Results (PbR) Arrangements

for 2011–12. 2011. URL: www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/
PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_124356 (accessed 1 March 2014).
139. Garside R, Stein K, Wyatt K, Round A, Pitt M. A cost-utility analysis of microwave and thermal
balloon endometrial ablation techniques for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.
140. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published
randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1999;319:670–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7211.670
141. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality
of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:637–9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030
142. Barzi F, Woodward M. Imputations of missing values in practice: results from imputations
of serum cholesterol in 28 cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol 2004;160:34–45. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/aje/kwh175
143. Office for National Statistics (ONS). Gross Weekly Earnings of Full-time Employees.
URL: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/search/index.html?newquery = weekly+earnings
(accessed 1 January 2014).
144. Ratcliffe J, Ryan M, Tucker J. The costs of alternative types of routine antenatal care for low-risk
women: shared care vs care by general practitioners and community midwives. J Health Serv Res
Policy 1996;1:135–40.
145. Automobile Association (AA). Motoring Costs for Petrol Cars. 2013. URL: theaa.com/resources/
Documents/pdf/motoring-advice/running-costs/petrol2013.pdf (accessed 1 January 2013).
146. Department of Health (DH). National Travel Survey. 2010. URL: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8940/nts2010–09.pdf (accessed 1 January 2014).
147. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brian BJ. Methods for the Economic Evaluation
of Health Care Programme. 3rd edn. Oxford University Press; 2005.
148. Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ 2001;10:179–84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.584
149. Doshani A, Pitchforth E, Mayne C, Tincello DG. The value of qualitative research
in urogynaecology. BJOG 2009;116:3–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01924.x
150. Morgan M, Dodds W, Wolfe C, Raju S. Women’s views and experiences of outpatient
hysteroscopy: implications for a patient-centered service. Nurs Health Sci 2004;6:315–20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2004.00202.x
151. Peel E, Parry O, Douglas M, Lawton J. ‘It’s no skin off my nose’: why people take part
in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2006;16:1335–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1049732306294511
152. Morris N, Schneider M. Volunteer research subjects’ experience of participation in research
on a novel diagnostic technology for breast cancer. Qual Health Res 2010;20:81–92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732309355592
153. McCann SK, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA. Reasons for participating in randomised controlled
trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials 2010;11:31. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1186/1745-6215-11-31
154. Irvine A. Duration, dominance and depth in telephone and face-to-face interviews: a comparative
exploration. Int J Qual Methods 2011;10:202–20.
112
155. Bryman A. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
156. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
157. British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National
Formulary. No. 65, March 2013. London: BMA and RPS; 2013.
158. Lockwood GG, White DC. Measuring the costs of inhaled anaesthetics. Br J Anaesth
2001;87:559–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/87.4.559
159. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health Social Care 2011. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent;
2011.
160. Critchley H, Warner P, Lee AJ, Brechin S, Guise J, Graham B. Evaluation of abnormal uterine
bleeding: comparison of three outpatient procedures within cohorts defined by age
and menopausal status. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(34). http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta8340
113
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 1 Statistical analysis plan
OPT: The Outpatient Polyp Treatment Trial
Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)
Version Number: 1.1

Effective Date: 23/2/2013 (version 1.0 23/12/2008 – minor changes documented
below)
Prepared By: Lee Middleton
115
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 1
1. Introduction
This document gives a detailed statistical analysis plan for the OPT Randomised
Controlled Trial, and should be read in conjunction with the current trial protocol.
2. Changes from original SAP (v1.0)
Some minor additions to the original SAP have been added to this version. These
comprise of further sensitivity analysis and further description of analysis to minor
end points. These are highlighted below in italics. No other fundamental changes
have been made to the SAP since original approval by the independent Data
Monitoring Committee.
3. Study Design
Setting
OPT is a non-inferiority trial designed to determine reliably whether Outpatient polyp
removal under local anaesthetic is no worse (or not worse than a pre-specified
margin) than Inpatient surgery for women with uterine polyps, and to determine the
relative cost-effectiveness of each strategy.
Interventions
Outpatient treatment (a.k.a ‘Outpatient’ treatment) versus standard Inpatient
treatment.
Sample Size
The sample size is chosen to give good statistical power to preclude any clinically
important inferiority of Outpatient polypectomy compared to Inpatient treatment.
Outpatient treatment is more convenient for women in that no inpatient stay is

required and is also likely to cost substantially less. We believe, therefore, that
Outpatient will be the treatment of choice even if 25% less women (in relative terms)
have alleviated symptoms at 6 months, i.e. the margin of non-inferiority is set at 0.75.
Making the assumption that Inpatient treatment will be 90% successful (as judged by
the primary outcome) and Outpatient 80% successful, a sample size of approximately
200 in each arm (400 in total) will be needed to rule out a success rate of less than
67.5% in the Outpatient arm with 90% power, i.e. not more than 25% worse
(0.675/0.90=0.75). This calculation was based on a conservative two-sided test at the
5% level (equivalent to a one-sided test at the 2.5% level). To also allow for a 15%
116
loss to follow-up, the target sample size is inflated to 240 patients in each group (i.e.
480 patients in total).
Primary Outcome
The primary end-point is based on the woman’s assessment of their own bleeding and
is formed of a dichotomous (yes/no) response. This question differs depending on the
referral reason (see table below), but in all cases responding ‘yes’ will be defined as a
success.
Bleeding Patient type Assessment of

problem bleeding question
Pre-menopausal & post- Has your bleeding
Heavy menstrual menopausal on sequential returned to an
HRT preparations acceptable level (y/n)?
Pre-menopausal & post- Has your
menopausal on sequential intermenstrual
Intermenstrual
HRT preparations bleeding stopped
(y/n)?
Post-menopausal taking no
Bleeding not Has your bleeding
HRT or ‘no bleed’
expected stopped (y/n)?
preparations
Primary time-point
Data collected at six months follow-up will be considered the primary time point for
analysis. Data will also be collected at one and two years follow-up.
4. General considerations
Levels of confidence and p-values
All results will be presented as point estimates and 95% confidence intervals along
with associated p-values from two-sided tests. Analysis will be performed in SAS
v9.2.
Analysis population
117
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 1
Analysis will be performed intention to treat (ITT) in the first instance, although as
recommended in the CONSORT statement1 and by Jones2 a ‘per protocol’ (PP)
analysis for the primary outcome will also be performed as some protection for any
theoretical increase in the risk of type I error (erroneously concluding non-inferiority).
The ITT analysis will include all randomised patients in the groups they were
allocated, regardless of whether the women received this, or indeed any, treatment.
The PP analysis will include only those women who received their allocated treatment
at the time of their initial operation.
Missing Data
In the first instance, analysis will be completed on received data only with every
effort made to follow up participants even after protocol treatment violation to
minimise any potential bias.
In addition to this primary method the following analysis will also be completed as a
sensitivity analysis (not included on the original version of the SAP): To examine the
possible impact of missing data on the results, analysis using a multiple imputation
approach will be performed on the primary outcome measure. Missing responses will
be simulated using a Markov chain Monte Carlo method (MCMC) that assumes an
arbitrary missing data pattern and a multivariate normal distribution. Variables
including treatment group, the three subgroup variables (listed below) and a variable
for each time-point will be included in the model and used to generate 20 simulated
data-sets. Analysis will be then be performed (as per the primary analysis proposed)
on each set with the results combined using Rubin’s rule to obtain a single set of
results (treatment effect estimate and confidence intervals).
Late responses
Questionnaires at each time point will be excluded and treated as missing data if they
are returned after the subsequent questionnaire has been sent to the patient (e.g. a six
month form returned after nine months will be included. A six month formed returned
after one year will be excluded and treated as missing). If a late form, which would
otherwise be excluded, is the only form available for the later time point it will be
included at the subsequent time point (one year in this example). However, if a
separate form is returned in time this will be included and the late six month form
discarded. All forms will be assumed to have been completed on the completion date
118
written on the form. If this date is missing, forms will be assumed to have been
completed on the date they were received.
Timing of interim analysis

Interim analyses of primary and major secondary end-points will be conducted on
behalf of an independent DMC and will occur at least at yearly intervals following
commencement of recruitment (or more frequently if deemed necessary). This will
include a full safety report. Content of reporting (e.g. presentation of demographic or
output tables and plots) will be agreed prior to recruitment with the DMC members
along with stopping/modifying criteria (see terms of reference for more information).
Pragmatic stopping criteria will be applied where an overwhelmingly convincing
difference, likely to change clinical practice, would need to be seen in the primary
outcome for the DMC to recommend the study stops early or needs to be modified
(see DMC charter for more details).
Timing of final (main) analysis for dissemination
The final analysis will be performed when all recruited patients have reached the two
year follow-up stage (or earlier should the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC)
recommend that the trial stop earlier if, for example, one particular treatment is
overwhelmingly beneficial – see DMC terms of reference). It will include all scores
from completed questionnaires up to and including this time. Six month follow-up
will be considered the primary analysis time however.
Timing of other planned analyses

There are no further analyses planned. The last follow-up time is at two years.
5. Proposed analyses
Primary endpoint
Unadjusted risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for the primary
outcome. These will be generated through the use of a log-binomial regression model.
A chi-squared test will be used to examine statistical significance. We will only
conclude non-inferiority with Outpatient treatment if the lower band of the 95%
confidence interval is not less than the 25% (in relative terms) margin of non-
inferiority. See figure below.
119
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 1
Secondary endpoints
Secondary endpoints measured on a continuous scale (scores from MMAS, Euroqol
questionnaires, and VAS scores) will be analysed at each time point using a linear
model (analysis of covariance) adjusting for baseline score. A repeated measures
analysis including all assessment time-points will also be performed for these end-
points. Models here included parameters allowing for group, time and baseline score
and in the first instance assume a constant treatment effect over time. Time by
treatment interaction will be explored though by including this parameter in the linear
model. Furthermore, paired t-tests at each time point were used to investigate change
scores within groups (this latter analysis was not included in the original SAP but was
considered to be informative).
Standard tests will be used for other outcome measures: Cochran-Armitage test for
trend for ordinal responses, t-tests for continuous data and chi-squared tests for binary
and categorical responses.
Planned subgroup analysis

Subgroup analysis will be limited to the primary outcome and to the stratification
variables pre-specified in the protocol which comprise of the following (due to the
very small numbers sampled taking HRT and with a history of use of Tamoxifen these
two originally proposed subgroup variables will be ignored):
· Type of bleeding (post-menopausal/heavy menstrual/inter-menstrual)

· Location of uterine polyp (fundal versus non-fundal)
120
· Type of uterine polyp (endometrial ‘glandulocystic’ versus fibrous)
Standard tests for interaction will be used to explore the effects of these subgroups
prior to any examination of effect sizes within and between subgroups, i.e. by testing
the statistical significance of interaction parameters (treatment by subgroup) included
in the log-binomial regression model. Effect sizes will only be examined if interaction
effects are shown to be statistically important (the value of p<0.05 will be used here).
Sensitivity analysis
As a sensitivity analysis estimates adjusted for the variables listed above (subgroups)
for primary and important secondary endpoints will be generated by adding them to
the corresponding linear models (this is in addition to the original SAP). Further
sensitivity analysis on the primary outcome will be analysis excluding those women
who have gone on to receive a further related procedure (e.g. further polyp
removal/hysterectomy/ablation) and also an exploration of primary outcome results
without forms that were received more than 3 months after their due date. Other
sensitivity analysis (not included in the original SAP) will include analysis of the
primary outcome without those women who had a LNG-IUS system fitted at the time
of original operation and also an analysis of bleeding scores following a log-
transformation to stabilise the variance.
Safety data
Tables of frequencies of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) by treatment group will be
reported. It is not anticipated these events will be formally analysed – the low
anticipated frequencies of events mean we would have low power to detect any
differences through any hypothesis testing.
Health Economic analyses

As indicated in the protocol there will also be an economic analysis. The details of
this analysis are documented separately.
Any deviations from this plan will be described in the final report.
121
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 1
1
Reporting of Noninferiority and equivalence trials. An extention of the CONSORT
statement. Piaggio et al. JAMA. 2006; 295:1152-1160.
2
Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. Jones et al. BMJ.
1996; 313:36-9.
122
Appendix 2 Enrolment form: all participants
Assessment of bleeding
Women participating in this study have a variety of different gynaecological bleeding
problems e.g. heavy periods, bleeding between periods, bleeding on hormone
replacement therapy, bleeding after the menopause etc. We want to find out more
about the particular bleeding problem you have and so we would be grateful if you
could answer the questions below.
Question 1
Please place a mark (X) on the line shown below to indicate how often you
experienced your bleeding problem during the last month. One extreme of the
line represents “no days of bleeding” while the other represents “bleeding every
day”.
An example is shown below:
Example
No days of Bleeding
bleeding every day
Duration of Bleeding
No days of Bleeding
bleeding every day
Question 2
Please place a mark (X) on the line shown below to indicate how heavy your
bleeding was over the last month. One extreme of the line represents “no
bleeding at all” while the other represents “heaviest bleeding imaginable”.
Heaviness of Bleeding
Heaviest
None
imaginable
123
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 2
Quality of life questions

To help people say how good or bad their
health state is, we have drawn a scale (rather
like a thermometer) on which the best state you
Please answer the questions by can imagine is marked by 100 and the worst
ticking one box in each group. state you could imagine is marked by 0.
Please indicate which statement
best describes your own health
today We would like you to indicate on the scale how
good or bad your own health is today, in your
1. Mobility opinion. Please do this by drawing a line from
the black box to whichever point on the scale
I have no problems
indicates how good or bad your current health
walking about state is.
I have some problems in
walking about
Best imaginable health state
I am confined to bed 100
2. Self care
9 0
I have no problems with
self-care
I have some problems 8 0
washing or dressing
myself
7 0
I am unable to wash or
dress myself
6 0
3. Usual activities e.g. work,

study, housework, family 5 0
or leisure activities
I have no problems with 4 0
performing my usual
activities
I have some problems 3 0
with performing my
usual activities Your own 2 0
I am unable to perform health state
my usual activities today
1 0
0
Worst imaginable health state
124
4. Pain/ Discomfort
I have no pain or
discomfort
I have moderate pain or
discomfort
I have extreme pain or
discomfort
5. Anxiety/ Depression
I am not anxious or
depressed
I am moderately anxious
or depressed
I am extremely anxious
or depressed
© EuroQoL Group
If you are still having periods or are on Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT)
that gives you a regular monthly bleed please complete Quality of Life Questions
A below.
If you have gone through the menopause (stopped your period for more than one
year) then please complete Quality of Life Questions B on page 5.
Quality of Life Questions (A)
In each of the following areas of health, select the statement that best applies to you
and place a tick in the right hand side box provided. Please tick only one statement in
each area.
1 Practical difficulties
I have no practical difficulties, bleed no more than I expect and take no extra precautions
I have to carry extra sanitary protection with me but take no other precautions
I have to carry extra sanitary protection and clothes because of the risk of flooding
I have severe problems with flooding, soil the bedding and need to be close to a toilet
2 Social Life
My social life is unaffected during my cycle. I can enjoy life as much as usual
My social life is slightly affected during my cycle. I may have to cancel or modify my plans
My social life is limited during my cycle. I rarely make any plans
My social life is devastated during my cycle. I am unable to make any plans
125
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 2
3 Psychological health
During my cycle I have no worries I can cope normally
During my cycle I experience some anxiety and worry
During my cycle I often feel down and worry about how I’ll cope
During my cycle I feel depressed and cannot cope
4 Physical health and wellbeing
During my cycle I feel well and relaxed. I am not concerned about my health
During my cycle I feel well most of the time. I am a little concerned about my health
During my cycle I often feel tired and do not feel especially well. I am concerned about my
health
During my cycle I feel very tired and do not feel well at all. I am seriously concerned about
my health
5 Work/daily routine
There are no interruptions to my work/daily routine during my cycle
There are occasional disruptions to my work/daily routine during my cycle
There are frequent disruptions to my work/daily routine during my cycle
There are severe disruptions to my work/daily routine during my cycle
6 Family life/relationships
My family life/relationships are unaffected during my cycle
My family life/relationships suffer some strain during my cycle
My family life/relationships suffers quite a lot during my cycle
My family life/relationships are severely disrupted as a result of my cycle
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire

Only complete Quality of Life B if you have gone through the menopause and
haven’t already completed Quality of Life A
Quality of Life Questions (B)

In each of the following areas of health, select the statement that best applies to you
and place a tick in the right hand side box provided. Please tick only one statement in
each area.
I have no practical difficulties and take no extra precautions
I have to carry extra sanitary protection and clothes because of the risk of bleeding
I have severe problems with bleeding, soil the bedding and need to be close to a toilet
126
2 Social Life
My social life is unaffected because of bleeding. I can enjoy life as much as usual
My social life is slightly affected because of bleeding. I may have to cancel or modify my plans
My social life is limited because of bleeding. I rarely make any plans
My social life is devastated because of bleeding. I am unable to make any plans
My bleeding causes me no worries and I can cope normally
Because of my bleeding I experience some anxiety and worry
Because of my bleeding I often feel down and worry about how I’ll cope
Because of my bleeding I feel depressed and cannot cope

I feel well and relaxed despite my bleeding. I am not concerned about my health
I feel well most of the time despite my bleeding. I am a little concerned about my health
Because of my bleeding I often feel tired and do not feel especially well. I am concerned about
my health
Because of my bleeding I feel very tired and do not feel well at all. I am seriously concerned
about my health
There are no interruptions to my work/daily routine because of my bleeding
There are occasional disruptions to my work/daily routine because of my bleeding
There are frequent disruptions to my work/daily routine because of my bleeding
There are severe disruptions to my work/daily routine because of my bleeding
My family life/relationships are unaffected because of my bleeding

My family life/relationships suffer some strain because of my bleeding
My family life/relationships suffers quite a lot because of my bleeding
My family life/relationships are severely disrupted as a result of my bleeding
127
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 3 Follow-up forms
Assessment of bleeding
Women participating in this study have a variety of different gynaecological bleeding problems
e.g. heavy periods, bleeding between periods, bleeding on hormone replacement therapy, bleeding
after the menopause etc. We would be grateful if you could answe r the following questions to help
us find out the effect of your recent operation (removal of polyp) on the particular bleeding
problem you were originally referred to hospital with. Please consider only the last month when
answering these questions.
Question 1
Please place a mark (X) on the line shown below to indicate how often you experienced your
bleeding problem (if any) lasted for during the last month. One extreme of the line represents “no
days of bleeding at all” while the other represents “bleeding every day”.
An example is shown below:
Example
No days of Bleeding
bleeding X every day
Duration of Bleeding
No days of
bleeding Bleeding
Question 2 every day
Please place a mark (X) on the line shown below to indicate how heavy your bleeding was over
the last month. One extreme of the line represents “no bleeding at all” while the other represents
“heaviest bleeding imaginable”.
Heaviest
None
imaginable
Question 3
Compared to before your treatment, would you say your bleeding is:
Much better A little better
Same Worse
Has you bleeding returned to an acceptable level? Yes No

Additional medical treatment for bleeding in the last month
Please consider the only the last month when answering the following questions.
Are you currently taking any other treatment for your bleeding? No Yes
If Yes, please give name of treatment: Ponstan (mefenamic acid) Cyklokapron
(tranexamic acid) Contraceptive pill (any brand) Mirena coil Progesterones
Questions 1 and 2 above are only used on the Excessive Bleeding version of the questionnaire (SE)
Question 3 differs slightly on version Post Menopausal Bleeding (NE) “Has your bleeding stopped”
and Intermenstrual Bleeding (SI) “Has your intermenstrual bleeding stopped”
129
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 3
Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) Local oestrogen cream Other If Other, please
specify
For the next questions, if the answer is yes, please give number of nights/days/visits as appropriate.
Please consider the last 6 months when answering these questions.
Since your initial treatment: No Yes If Yes, number

of nights/days/visits
Have you had to visit the hospital outpatient
clinic due to the bleeding?
Have you been admitted to a hospital ward but
not needed to stay overnight due to your bleeding?
Have you spent any nights in hospital due
to the bleeding?
Have you seen your GP at their surgery because
of the bleeding?
Has your GP or nurse had to visit to you at home
due to the bleeding?
Have you taken days off work because
of the bleeding?
Since your initial treatment have you visited hospital again for further polyp(s)
removal?
No Yes Not known
If yes, when did you go back to hospital? (approx. date mm/yyyy) /
If yes, did you have the polyp removed: Inpatient (day case) Outpatient Not known
Other Gynaecological (Womens’ health) Treatments
Have you had any other gynaecological surgery (since your initial treatment)?
No Yes if yes, was it: Another hysteroscopy? Hysterectomy?

Other If other what was this for?
Have you seen a gynaecologist for any other reason?
No Yes If yes why?
Hospital Admissions
Have you been admitted to hospital for any other reasons (not due to your bleeding)?
No Yes If yes why?
Tampon/sanitary towel usage

On average how many tampons/sanitary towels do you use per day of your bleeding?
Pregnancy
If premenopausal, are you currently pregnant? No Yes
130
Quality of life questions

To help people say how good or bad their
Please answer the questions by ticking one box health state is, we have drawn a scale
(rather like a thermometer) on which the
in each group. Please indicate which statement
best state you can imagine is marked by 100
best describes your own health today and the worst state you could imagine is
marked by 0.
1. Mobility
We would like you to indicate on the scale
I have no problems walking about
how good or bad your own health is today,
I have some problems in walking about in your opinion. Please do this by drawing a
I am confined to bed line from the black box to whichever point
on the scale indicates how good or bad your
current health state is.
2. Self care Best imaginable health state

I have no problems with self-care
I have some problems washing or
dressing myself 100
I am unable to wash or dress myself
9 0
3. Usual activities e.g. work, study,
housework, family or leisure activities
8 0
I have no problems with performing my
usual activities
I have some problems with performing 7 0
my usual activities
Your own
I am unable to perform my usual activities health state 6 0
today
4. Pain/ Discomfort 5 0
I have no pain or discomfort
I have moderate pain or discomfort
4 0
I have extreme pain or discomfort
3 0
5. Anxiety/ Depression
I am not anxious or depressed
2 0
I am moderately anxious or depressed
I am extremely anxious or depressed
1 0
© EuroQoL Group
0
Worst imaginable health state
131
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 3
Quality of Life questions (Shaw)

In each of the following areas of health, select the statement that best applies to you and place a tick in
the right hand side box provided. Please tick only one statement in each area.
I have no practical difficulties, bleed no more than I expect and take no extra precautions
I have to carry extra sanitary protection and clothes because of the risk of flooding
I have severe problems with flooding, soil the bedding and need to be close to a toilet
2 Social Life
My social life is unaffected during my cycle. I can enjoy life as much as usual
My social life is slightly affected during my cycle. I may have to cancel or modify my plans
My social life is limited during my cycle. I rarely make any plans
My social life is devastated during my cycle. I am unable to make any plans
During my cycle I have no worries I can cope normally

During my cycle I experience some anxiety and worry
During my cycle I often feel down and worry about how I’ll cope
During my cycle I feel depressed and cannot cope
During my cycle I feel well and relaxed. I am not concerned about my health
During my cycle I feel well most of the time. I am a little concerned about my health
During my cycle I often feel tired and do not feel especially well. I am concerned about my health
During my cycle I feel very tired and do not feel well at all. I am seriously concerned about my health
There are no interruptions to my work/daily routine during my cycle

There are occasional disruptions to my work/daily routine during my cycle
There are frequent disruptions to my work/daily routine during my cycle
There are severe disruptions to my work/daily routine during my cycle
My family life/relationships are unaffected during my cycle

My family life/relationships suffer some strain during my cycle
My family life/relationships suffers quite a lot during my cycle
My family life/relationships are severely disrupted as a result of my cycle
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this questionnaire
132
Appendix 4 Assessment of inpatient treatment

experience
We would like to assess how much abdominal pain you experienced during and after
your treatment. Please place a mark (x) on the lines shown below to indicate how
much pain you had. One extreme of the line represents “no pain at all” while the other
represents “as much pain as you can possibly imagine”.
1. Pain one hour following procedure
No pain at all Worst

imaginable pain
2. Pain on discharge from hospital

imaginable pain
3. Would you describe the procedure as:
Totally acceptable Generally acceptable

Fairly acceptable Unacceptable
4. Did you find the exposure required for the procedure embarrassing?
Yes, extremely Yes, moderately Yes, a little No
5. If you had a friend with a similar problem to you, would
you recommend this operation? Yes No
6. Would you have the same treatment again? Yes No
7. With hindsight would you have preferred to have avoided a

general anaesthetic (i.e. be awake for the procedure)? Yes No
8. In the time period from your outpatient hysteroscopy to coming into hospital
today would you say your bleeding symptoms are?
Same Better Worse
Please give any comments about your treatment experience:
133
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 5 Assessment of outpatient

treatment experience
We would like to assess how much abdominal pain you experienced during and after
your treatment. Please place a mark (x) on the lines shown below to indicate how
much pain you had. One extreme of the line represents “no pain at all” while the other
represents “as much pain as you can possibly imagine”.
1. Pain during procedure

imaginable pain
2. Pain one hour following procedure

imaginable pain
3. Pain on discharge from hospital

imaginable pain
4. Would you describe the procedure as?
Totally acceptable Generally acceptable

Fairly acceptable Unacceptable
5. Did you find the exposure required for the procedure embarrassing?
Yes, extremely Yes, moderately Yes, a little No
6. If you had a friend with a similar problem to you, would
you recommend this operation? Yes No
7. Would you have the same treatment again? Yes No
8. With hindsight would you have preferred to have had a

general anaesthetic (i.e. be put to sleep for the procedure)? Yes No
9. Please give any comments about your treatment experience:
135
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 6 Patient cost questionnaire
Thinking about your most recent visit to the hospital clinic:

1. What would have been your main activity if you had not attended the clinic?
Paid employment
Looking after relatives
Leisure activities
Housework
Studying at college
Other Please specify_________________
If you are in paid employment, please answer question 2, if not go to

question 3.
2. What arrangements did you make to take time off work? (Please tick one box)
Paid absence from work
Unpaid absence from work
Will make the time up
Came to clinic outside work time
Took holiday
Other arrangements Please specify___________
3. How long did it take you to travel to the clinic?
________ hours ________minutes
4. Approximately what distance did you have to travel to get to the clinic (one-way)?
_______________miles
137
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 6
5.
a) How did you travel to the clinic? Please tick the main forms of transport.
Walking
Private car
Public transport - bus
Public transport - train
Taxi
Other Please specify _______________
b) If you travelled by private car, were you given a lift by someone else?
Yes No
c) If you travelled by private car, how much was paid in car park fees ?
£_____p_____
d) If you travelled by public transport (bus or train), what was the cost of the one-
way fare? If you were given a return fare, simply halve it. Put zero if you did not
travel by public transport at all or you did not pay a fare.
£_____p_____
e) If you travelled by taxi what was the cost of the (one-way) fare? Put zero if you did
not travel by taxi at all or you did not pay a fare.
£_____p_____
6. Did anyone accompany you to the clinic
and wait for you while you received your care ? Yes No
If yes, did they take time off work ? Yes No
138
7. If you have other dependants,
Did you pay someone to look after them?
Yes No Not Applicable
If yes, how much did it cost ? £_____ p______
or
Did someone take time off work to look after them? Yes No
8. How long did you spend waiting at the clinic before your appointment?
________ hours ________minutes
If you have any comments about your costs for attending the clinic or anything else about this
study please write them below.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.
139
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 7 Polyp treatment form
A Randomised Trial of Outpatient Polyp
OPT Treatment for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding

POLYP TREATMENT FORM
Patient details
OPT Trial Number: Patient Initials: Weight (kg):
Date of birth (dd/mmm/yyyy): .. / . / Height (cm):

Parity: (Vaginal: C/S: )
Ethnicity (please tick one below):
White Mixed white and black Caribbean
Asian - Indian Mixed white and black African

Asian - Pakistani Mixed white and Asian
Asian - Bangladeshi Mixed - Other
Asian - Other Chinese
Black - Caribbean Other ethnic group
Black - African If Other ethnic group please state:
Black - Other Not stated
GP name:
GP Address:
Postcode:
Outpatient clinic Operating Theatre
Date of procedure: (dd/mmm/yyyy): ./ ./ .

Polyp(s):
1. Number: Size (cm, to 1 decimal place): . (largest if multiple)
2. Location(s): anterior posterior lateral left lateral right fundal isthmic
left cornual right cornual
Surgical technique:
3. Type of anaesthetic: General Regional Local None
4. If Local anaesthetic: Direct cervical Paracervical
Please state agent (s), vasoconstrictor, quantity and dose if applicable
Agent Please tick all used Dose Quantity Vasoconstrictor Please

(%) (mls) tick
Lignocaine None
Prilocaine Adrenaline
Mepivicaine Felypressin
Bupivicaine Other, please state
Other, please state:
5. Cervical dilatation: Yes No
141
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 7
6. ‘Blind’ removal Hysteroscopic removal
Please give details of scope and technique: .

6.1 Manufacturer: Storz Wolf ‘Versacope’ (Ethicon) Olympus
Other (If Other, please state)
6.2 Rigid Flexible 6.3 Angle of distal lens (o): 6.4 Outer diameter (mm):
6.5 Resectoscope: Yes No
6.6 Distension medium: Saline Glycine Other (If Other please state)
6.7 Speculum No Speculum (i.e. ‘vaginoscopic’ polyp removal)
7. Instrument(s) to detach polyp: (tick more than one if combination used)

Forceps Snare Scissors Curette ‘Blind’ polyp/sponge forceps
Electrode If electrode, specify:
VersapointTM Spring VersapointTM Twizzle Monopolar resecting loop
Other electrode (please specify:
...)
Other If other please specify:

................................................................
8. Complete removal Partial removal Failed removal

If failed or partial removal please state why:
Patient discomfort Unable to access under vision* Inadequate visualisation
(bubbles/blood debris) Unable to locate ‘blindly’ Equipment failure
Other (If Other, please state) .. ..
*i.e. unable to remove because problematic access to polyp as a result of factors such as
patient habitus, uterine axis / size, polyp location / size / type etc.
If failed or partial removal, is further treatment planned? No Yes If Yes is this:
Inpatient Outpatient Other If Other please specify: ……………………………………..
Approx date of further treatment: ………./………..….. (mm/yyyy)
9. Instrument(s) to retrieve polyp: (tick more than one if combination used)

None Hysteroscopic ‘Blind’ forceps Curette Failed to retrieve
If ‘failed’ to retrieve please state why:

Patient discomfort Narrowed cervix / big polyp Unable to locate ‘blindly’ Unable
to grasp under vision Other (If Other, please state) ……...…………………
142
10. Operative complications (attach separate sheet if necessary)

None Vaso-vagal episode Cervical trauma Uterine perforation
Haemorrhage Other (If Other, please state)
.
11. Was further treatment prescribed for bleeding? No Yes
If Yes, please give name of treatment: Ponstan (mefenamic acid)
Cyklokapron (tranexamic acid) Contraceptive pill (any brand) Mirena coil

Progesterones Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) Local oestrogen cream
Other If Other, please specify:
…………………………………………………………………………
Time taken
12. Polypectomy (mins):

(From insertion to removal of vaginal instrumentation post-randomisation)
13. If OUTPATIENT time taken to complete the consultation (mins):

(From entry to exit of outpatient room)
14. If INPATIENT time taken in operating theatre (mins):

(From ‘check’ in anaesthetic room to transfer to recovery area)
Name of surgeon (please print):

.
Grade: Consultant Associate Specialist Staff Grade Specialist Registrar
Other If Other, please specify:

..
Signed: Date: ./ / . (dd/mmm/yyy)
Please enter data online at https://www.trials.bham.ac.uk/OPT or return forms to: OPT Study Office,
FREEPOST RRKR-JUZR-HZHG, BCTU, Division of Medical Sciences, University of Birmingham, B15
2TT, or return by Fax: 0121 415 9135.
143
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 8 Post-treatment discharge form
A Randomised Trial of Outpatient Polyp
OPT Treatment for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding
POST TREATMENT DISCHARGE FORM
Patient details
OPT Trial Number: Patient Initials:
Date of birth .... ./ .. / .(dd/mmm/yyyy):
1. Date and Time admitted to ward

(or appointment time if allocated outpatient treatment)
Time: : (hours : mins, 24hr clock)
Date: .... ./ .. / .(dd/mmm/yyyy)
2. Analgesics prescribed post-operatively No Yes If yes, please

complete below:
Paracetamol
Codeine based: Co-dydramol Co-proxamol Co-codamol
Dihydrocodeine
Other If Other please specify
...
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory: Diclofenac Ibuprofen Mefenamic acid
Other If other please specify
Other opiate: Morphine Diamorphine Pethidine Tramadol

3. Analgesics prescribed on discharge (TTOs) No Yes If yes, please

complete below:
Paracetamol
Codeine based: Co-dydramol Co-proxamol Co-codamol
Dihydrocodeine
...
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory: Diclofenac Ibuprofen Mefenamic acid
Other If other please specify
Other opiate: Morphine Diamorphine Pethidine Tramadol

145
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 8
4. Any post-operative complication(s) No Yes If yes, please

complete below:
Vaso-vagal reaction*
Vomiting
Severe pain unresponsive to analgesia
Other (If Other please specify)
* dizziness, fainting +/- nausea associated with pallor, pulse <60 beats/min and systolic BP
<90mmHg
5. Date and Time left hospital after treatment

Time: : (hours : mins, 24hr clock)
Date: .... ./ .. / .(dd/mmm/yyyy)
6. Number of staff and grade on ward directly involved with patient care
PTO
Staff Grade Number Grade Number
Present Present
Grade A - Unqualified nurse, Health Grade B - Unqualified nurse, Health

Care Assistant, Nursing Assistant, Care Assistant, Nursing Assistant,
Nursing Auxiliary or Care Assistant Nursing Auxiliary or Care Assistant
Grade C - Unqualified nurse or state Grade D - Fully qualified staff

enrolled nurse nurse, Registered nurse or
registered general nurse
Grade E - Fully qualified senior staff Grade F - Fully qualified senior staff
nurse or senior registered nurse nurse, junior sister, ward sister,
school nurse, GP practice nurse,
team leader or junior charge nurse
Grade G Fully qualified ward Grade H - Fully qualified nurses with

manager, sister or charge nurse clinical specialist roles or ward
managers with extra roles
Grade I - Fully qualified senior Senior House Officer

nurses with responsibilities across a
hospital trust
Staff Grade Specialist Registrar
Associate Specialist Consultant
146
Completed by (please print):
Signed:
Date: .. ./ . ../
Please enter data online at https://www.trials.bham.ac.uk/OPT or return forms to: OPT Study Office,
FREEPOST RRKR-JUZR-HZHG, BCTU, Division of Medical Sciences, University of Birmingham,
Birmingham B15 2TT, or return by Fax: 0121 415 9135.
147
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 9 CONSORT checklist (including details

with respect to extension for non-inferiority trials)
CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when
reporting a randomised trial
Item Reported on
Section/topic no. Checklist item page no.:
Title and abstract
1a Identification as a randomised trial in the title ii
1b Structured summary of trial design, methods, results, and iii–iv

conclusions (for specific guidance, see CONSORT for abstracts)
Introduction
Background and objectives 2a Scientific background and explanation of rationale 1–33
2b Specific objectives or hypotheses 34
Methods
Trial design 3a Description of trial design (such as parallel, factorial) including 34, 37
allocation ratio
3b Important changes to methods after trial commencement N/A

(such as eligibility criteria), with reasons
Participants 4a Eligibility criteria for participants 36–7
4b Settings and locations where the data were collected 37, 40
Interventions 5 The interventions for each group with sufficient details to allow 38
replication, including how and when they were
actually administered
Outcomes 6a Completely defined prespecified primary and secondary 40–3

outcome measures, including how and when they
were assessed
6b Any changes to trial outcomes after the trial commenced, N/A

with reasons
Sample size 7a How sample size was determined 44
7b When applicable, explanation of any interim analyses and 47

stopping guidelines
Randomisation:
Sequence generation 8a Method used to generate the random allocation sequence 37
8b Type of randomisation; details of any restriction 37

(such as blocking and block size)
Allocation concealment 9 Mechanism used to implement the random allocation sequence 37

mechanism (such as sequentially numbered containers), describing any steps
taken to conceal the sequence until interventions were assigned
Implementation 10 Who generated the random allocation sequence, who enrolled 37

participants, and who assigned participants to interventions
Blinding 11a If done, who was blinded after assignment to interventions N/A
(for example, participants, care providers, those assessing
outcomes) and how
11b If relevant, description of the similarity of interventions 44–6
149
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 9
Item Reported on
Section/topic no. Checklist item page no.:
Statistical methods 12a Statistical methods used to compare groups for primary 44–6
and secondary outcomes
12b Methods for additional analyses, such as subgroup analyses 44–6

and adjusted analyses
Results
Participant flow (a diagram 13a For each group, the numbers of participants who were 53
is strongly recommended) randomly assigned, received intended treatment, and were
analysed for the primary outcome
13b For each group, losses and exclusions after randomisation, 53

together with reasons
Recruitment 14a Dates defining the periods of recruitment and follow-up 50
14b Why the trial ended or was stopped 49
Baseline data 15 A table showing baseline demographic and clinical 52

characteristics for each group
Numbers analysed 16 For each group, number of participants (denominator) included 53, 55–6
in each analysis and whether the analysis was by original
assigned groups
Outcomes and estimation 17a For each primary and secondary outcome, results for each 55–68
group, and the estimated effect size and its precision
(such as 95% CI)
17b For binary outcomes, presentation of both absolute and relative 55

effect sizes is recommended
Ancillary analyses 18 Results of any other analyses performed, including subgroup 55

analyses and adjusted analyses, distinguishing prespecified
from exploratory
Harms 19 All important harms or unintended effects in each group 55

(for specific guidance see CONSORT for harms)
Discussion
Limitations 20 Trial limitations, addressing sources of potential bias, 70–1

imprecision, and, if relevant, multiplicity of analyses
Generalisability 21 Generalisability (external validity, applicability) 71–2

of the trial findings
Interpretation 22 Interpretation consistent with results, balancing benefits 69–72

and harms, and considering other relevant evidence
Other information
Registration 23 Registration number and name of trial registry iv
Protocol 24 Where the full trial protocol can be accessed, if available www.hta.ac.uk/
project/1679.asp
Funding 25 Sources of funding and other support (such as supply of drugs), iv

role of funders
N/A, not applicable.
We strongly recommend reading this statement in conjunction with the CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration for
important clarifications on all the items. If relevant, we also recommend reading CONSORT extensions for cluster
randomised trials, non-inferiority and equivalence trials, non-pharmacological treatments, herbal interventions, and
pragmatic trials. Additional extensions are forthcoming: for those, and for up-to-date references relevant to this checklist,
see www.consort-statement.org.
150
Appendix 10 Results of primary end point

(treatment success): sensitivity analyses
Assumption Time point RR (95% CI)a
Using a multiple imputation approach for missing responses 6 months 0.92 (0.82 to 1.03)
1 year 0.98 (0.89 to 1.07)

2 years 0.99 (0.91 to 1.07)
Excluding those women who had gone on to have a further related 6 months 0.92 (0.82 to 1.03)
procedure (another polyp removal/endometrial ablation/hysterectomy);
responses were excluded from corresponding surgery time onwards 1 year 0.97 (0.88 to 1.07)
2 years 0.97 (0.88 to 1.07)
Excluding those who returned their forms more than 3 months past 6 months 0.94 (0.84 to 1.05)
their due date (forms returned after the subsequent time point were
considered invalid and not used here or in the main analysis) 1 year 0.97 (0.89 to 1.07)
2 years 0.96 (0.88 to 1.05)

Excluding those who had a LNG-IUS fitted at the time of their 6 months 0.91 (0.82 to 1.02)
original operation
1 year 0.96 (0.87 to 1.05)
2 years 0.97 (0.89 to 1.05)
Worst-case scenario: all missing responses unsuccessful 6 months 0.98 (0.87 to 1.12)
1 year 1.02 (0.92 to 1.15)
2 years 1.06 (0.94 to 1.19)
Best-case scenario: all missing responses successful 6 months 0.91 (0.83 to 1.00)
1 year 0.97 (0.90 to 1.05)
2 years 0.97 (0.91 to 1.03)

a Estimates of RR > 1 favour outpatient polypectomy; those with RR < 1 favour inpatient polypectomy.
151
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 11 Results of primary end point

(treatment success): comparison with European
Quality of Life-5 Dimensions score
Time point Outcome Mean (SD, n) Difference (95% CI)a p-value
6 months Treatment ‘success’ 0.89 (0.21, 332) 0.06 (0.02 to 0.10) 0.008
Treatment ‘failure’ 0.81 (0.23, 105)
1 year Treatment ‘success’ 0.87 (0.24, 358) 0.07 (0.01 to 1.12) 0.01
2 years Treatment ‘success’ 0.87 (0.25, 345) 0.12 (0.06 to 0.18) 0.0003

a Adjusted for treatment group and baseline score.
153
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 12 Results of adjusted analyses for

major secondary outcomes
Likert response
Polypectomy
Compared with before your treatment,
Time of assessment would you say your bleeding is: Outpatient Inpatient
6 months Much better 164 (75%) 160 (81%)
Little better 24 (11%) 21 (11%)
Same 29 (13%) 12 (6%)
Worse 3 (1%) 4 (2%)
Total 220 197

a
RR (95% CI) 0.93 (0.87 to 1.00)
b
Adjusted RR (95% CI) 0.95 (0.89 to 1.02)
1 year Much better 177 (80%) 174 (82%)
Same 21 (10%) 21 (10%)
Worse 5 (2%) 5 (2%)
Total 221 212

a
RR (95% CI) 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08)
b
Adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.02 (0.95 to 1.08)
2 years Much better 173 (82%) 172 (88%)
Same 18 (8%) 10 (5%)
Worse 4 (2%) 1 (1%)
Total 212 195

a
RR (95% CI) 0.95 (0.90 to 1.01)
b
Adjusted RR (95% CI) 0.97 (0.92 to 1.03)
polypectomy; those with RR < 1 favour inpatient polypectomy.
b For the three minimisation variables listed in the main report.
155
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 13 Results of secondary outcomes:

scores
Polypectomy
Patient-reported Adjusted difference
outcome measures Outpatient: mean (SD, n) Inpatient: mean (SD, n) (95% CI);a p-value
MMASb
Baseline 52 (27, 134) 58 (24, 124)
6 months 78 (22, 115) c

79 (23, 99)c –1 (–7 to 5); 0.67
1 year 82 (23, 110)c 83 (21, 101)c –1 (–7 to 5); 0.79
2 years 84 (21, 93) c

85 (21, 83) c
–2 (–8 to 4); 0.53
Overall d
–1 (–6 to 4); 0.69
e
EuroQol EQ-5D
Baseline 0.78 (0.25, 242) 0.78 (0.27, 232)
6 months 0.87 (0.23, 230) c

0.87 (0.20, 211)c –0.01 (–0.05 to 0.03); 0.65
c c
1 year 0.86 (0.25, 227) 0.86 (0.24, 219) 0.00 (–0.04 to 0.04); 0.90
c
2 years 0.85 (0.25, 213) 0.84 (0.27, 196) 0.03 (–0.02 to 0.07); 0.28
Overalld 0.00 (–0.03 to 0.03); 0.95

f
EuroQol health thermometer
Baseline 77 (18, 233) 78 (18, 225)
c
6 months 79 (18, 227) 80 (17, 212) 0 (–3 to 3); 0.85
1 year 80 (17, 228)c 82 (16, 219)c –1 (–4 to 2); 0.48
2 years 79 (18, 207) 83 (16, 194) c

–2 (–5 to 1); 0.21
Overall d
–1 (–3 to 1); 0.27
g
Baseline 46 (28, 68) 53 (28, 67)

6 months 35 (30, 64) 28 (26, 56)c –10 (–21 to 1); 0.08
c c
1 year 18 (21, 58) 24 (28, 62) 5 (–5 to 14); 0.36
2 years 16 (22, 61) c

15 (25, 53) c
–3 (–12 to 7); 0.61
Overalld –3 (–10 to 4); 0.34
157
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 13
Polypectomy
Patient-reported Adjusted difference
outcome measures Outpatient: mean (SD, n) Inpatient: mean (SD, n) (95% CI);a p-value
Bleeding amount VASh
Baseline 58 (28, 70) 66 (26, 68)

6 months 29 (29, 68) c
29 (29, 58)c –1 (–12 to 10); 0.83
1 year 23 (26, 66)c 19 (22, 66)c –4 (–13 to 4); 0.34
2 years 19 (24, 63)c 18 (27, 57)c –2 (–12 to 8); 0.65
Overall d
–3 (–10 to 4); 0.39
polypectomy; those < 0 favour inpatient polypectomy. Adjustments are for the three minimisation variables listed in the
main report.
b MMAS questionnaire. Scores range from 0 (severely affected) to 100 (not affected). Restricted to those with HMB
and IMB only.
adjusting for group, baseline score and time. See statistical analysis section for details.
e HRQL questionnaire: scores range from –0.59 (health state worse than death) to 1.0 (perfect health state).
f HRQL questionnaire: scores range 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 1.0 (best imaginable health state).
g VAS score: scores range from 0 (no days of bleeding in the last month) to 100 (bleeding every day in the last month).
h VAS score: scores range from 0 (no bleeding in the last month) to 100 (heaviest imaginable bleeding in the last month).
158
Appendix 14 Results of visual analogue scale

bleeding scores sensitivity analysis: without those
prescribed levonorgestrel intrauterine system at the
time of operation
Polypectomy
Difference (95% CI);a
Time of assessment Outpatient mean (SD, n) Inpatient mean (SD, n) p-value
b
Baseline 48 (28, 53) 49 (28, 42)
6 months 32 (29, 47) c

26 (23, 36)c –8 (–20 to 5); 0.23
1 year 21 (22, 44)c 24 (30, 37)c 4 (–8 to 17); 0.50
2 years 18 (24, 45) c

16 (23, 31) c
–5 (–17 to 7); 0.41
Overall d
–4 (–12 to 5); 0.38
e
Bleeding amount VAS
Baseline 60 (26, 55) 60 (28, 42)
c
6 months 31 (31, 51) 31 (29, 37)c 0 (–13 to 13); 0.98
1 year 28 (27, 50) c

18 (23, 41) c
–9 (–20 to 2); 0.11
2 years 21 (26, 47) c

22 (30, 35) c
–1 (–14 to 12); 0.93
Overalld –4 (–13 to 5); 0.33

polypectomy; those < 0 favour inpatient polypectomy.
b VAS score: scores range from 0 (no days of bleeding in the last month) to 100 (bleeding every day in the last month).
adjusting for group, baseline score and time. See statistical analysis section for details.
e VAS score: scores range from 0 (no bleeding in the last month) to 100 (heaviest imaginable bleeding in the last month).
159
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 15 Results of operation acceptability
Polypectomy
Adjusted difference or RR
Patient experience and preference Outpatient Inpatient (95% CI);a p-value
Mean pain score during procedure (SD, n)b 45 (26, 217) – –

Mean pain score 1 hour after procedure (SD, n)b 28 (23, 176) 23 (22, 191) –5 (–10 to –1); 0.03
Mean pain score on discharge (SD, n) b

23 (21, 200) 15 (17, 186) –8 (–12 to –4); < 0.001
Procedure acceptable? n = 225 n = 197
Totally 136 (60%) 152 (77%)
Generally 51 (23%) 30 (15%) 0.92 (0.85 to 0.99); < 0.001c
Fairly 33 (15%) 12 (6%)
Unacceptable 5 (2%) 3 (2%)

Exposure embarrassing? n = 224 n = 196
Extremely 5 (2%) 4 (2%) 1.45 (0.86 to 2.45); 0.24d
Moderately 17 (8%) 24 (12%)
A little 79 (35%) 35 (18%)
No 123 (55%) 133 (68%)
Yes/total 205/222 (92%) 190/196 (97%) 0.96 (0.91 to 1.02); 0.16

Yes/total 200/223 (90%) 186/193 (96%) 0.95 (0.89 to 1.01); 0.09
Yes/total 47/218 (22%) 39/190 (21%) 0.95 (0.65 to 1.38); 0.78

a Estimates of differences > 0 favour outpatient polypectomy, those < 0 favour inpatient polypectomy
(for continuous responses), likewise estimates of RR > 1 favour outpatient polypectomy, those RR < 1 favour inpatient
polypectomy (for dichotomous responses). Adjustments are for the three minimisation variables listed in the main report.
b VAS score: scores range from 0 (no pain at all) to 100 (worst imaginable pain). The t-test used for analysis.
c Cochran–Armitage test for trend used for analysis; totally acceptable/generally acceptable vs. fairly acceptable/
d Cochran–Armitage test for trend used for analysis; extremely/moderately vs. a little/no combined categories used
to calculate RR.
161
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 16 Range of procedures and

equipment used within the Outpatient versus
inpatient Polyp Treatment Trial
Resource use Outpatient (n = 254) Inpatient (n = 253)
Anaesthesia
Local 91 15
General 14 201
Regional 0 5
None 139 19
Not specified 10 13
Scope manufacturer
Olympus 5-mm rigid hysteroscope 19 46

(Olympus, Southend-on-Sea, UK)
Storz Bettocchi hysteroscope 57 86

(Karl Storz – Endoskope, Tuttlingen, Germany)
Versascope® (Gynecare, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) 142 44
Wolf (Richard Wolf Medical Instruments Corporation, 2 18

Vernon Hills, Chicago, IL)
Other 4 5
None/not specified 30 54
Scope type
Rigid 176 197

Flexible 7 2
Not specified 71 54
Resectoscope used?
Yes 7 36
No 208 151
Not specified 39 66
Speculum used?
Yes 110 193
No 126 31
Not specified 18 29
163
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 16
Instrument for detaching polyp
Forceps 68 48
Snare 1 2
Scissors 5 1
Curette 9 60
Blind polyp/sponge forceps 32 55

Electrode 140 84
Versapoint spring 74 34
Versapoint twizzle 56 20
Monopolar loop 1 21
Other (bipolar loop) 9 7
Any other instrument?
Yes 6 4
No 230 224
Not specified 18 25
Instrument to retrieve polyp
Hysteroscope 131 61
Blind forceps 49 111
Curette 14 55
None 37 15
Not specified 16 29
Further treatment for bleeding?
No 170 174
Not specified 23 30
Yes 61 49
Mirena 32 43
Progesterone 7 0
®
Tranexamic acid (Cyclokapron , Pfizer) 12 1
Mefenamic acid (Ponstan, Pfizer) 1 1
Endometrial ablation 5 2
Hysterectomy 1 1
Other 3 1
Time taken (minutes)
For polypectomy (mean; SD) 10.67; 8.21 (88% patients) 12.1,7.78 (73.5% patients)
In outpatient room (mean; SD) 28.1; 14.62 (81.5% patients) 24; 9.65 (7% patients)
In operating theatre (mean; SD) 33.78; 14.33 (7% patients) 29.54; 13.43 (78% patients)
164
Surgeon grade
Consultant 172 153
Associate specialist 30 15
Staff grade 7 1
Specialist registrar 28 63
Other 7 4
Not specified 9 17
165
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 17 Local anaesthetic use in

outpatient polypectomy
Average Proportional Proportional

Agent use (ml) Cost (£)a Details use cost (£)
Lidocaine with 3.6 0.67 20 ml of 2% lidocaine with 0.4 0.27

adrenaline (2%) adrenaline = £1.37; (approximately one
half vial per patient)
Prilocaine with 4.4 0.94 2.2 ml of 3% prilocaine = £0.47 0.16 0.14

felypressin (3%)
Mepivacaine (3%) 6.2 1.08 2.2 ml of 3% mepivacaine = £0.36 0.41 0.44
Bupivacaine (3%) 6 0.94 10 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine = £0.94 0.03 0.03
Total cost 0.88

157
a All costs from the British National Formulary 2013.
167
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 18 General anaesthesia (drug costs)
Parenteral drugs Details Cost (£) Source
Fentanyl (100 µg) 2-ml ampoule of 50 μg/ml 0.30 BNF 2013157
Propofol (200 mg) 20-ml ampoule of 10 mg/ml 4.18 BNF 2013157
Dexamethasone (4 mg) 1-ml ampoule of 4 mg/ml 0.91 BNF 2013157
Ondansetron (4 mg) 2-ml ampoule of 2 mg/ml 1.00 BNF 2013157
Volterol (75 mg) 2-ml ampoule of 37.5 mg/ml 4.80 BNF 2013157
Paracetamol (1 g) 100-ml ampoule of 10 mg/ml; given in 1 l 4.37 BNF 2013157
of normal saline
Normal saline (1 l) 1-l normal saline infusion 3.12 Online sourcea

Sevoflurane (3%) For an average of 12 minutesb 1.93 BNF 2013157 and
Lockwood et al.158
Total cost 17.49

BNF, British National Formulary.
a From www.hce-uk.com/epages/HCE-UK.sf/en_GB.
b Average time taken for polypectomy in the operating room.
169
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 19 General anaesthesia (equipment

plus staff costs)
Equipment/staff Details Costa (£) Source
Intravenous cannula Pink cannula 1.6 Online sourcea
Dressing – 0.2 Online sourcea

Intravenous drug-giving set – 1.86 Online sourcea
Laryngeal mask airway – 10.74 Online sourcea
Syringes 2 × 20 ml; 5 × 2 ml 0.67 Online sourcea
Consultant anaesthetist 30 minutes 73.5 PSSRU 2012137
Nurse (grade 5) 10 minutes (for patient transfer) 14.2 PSSRU 2012137
Porter 10 minutes (for patient transfer) 3.5 PSSRU 2012137
Operating Department Practitioner 30 minutes 10.5 PSSRU 2012137

Total 116.8
a All costs include value-added tax and have been obtained from www.hce-uk.com/epages/HCE-UK.sf/en_GB.
171
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 20 Equipment costs for polypectomy
173
SO16 7NS, UK.
174
APPENDIX 20
Procurement Equipment Annuitisation Annuitised Times re-used Sterilisation/maintenance Cost per

Equipment cost (£)a lifespan (years) factorb costs (£)c per week per patient (£) patient (£)

Cervical speculum 2 0 (disposable) 0 2 0 0 2
Grasping forcepsd 662.5 5 0.842 773.7 5 0.2 0.8
Hysteroscope 5400 10 0.71 6493 5 1.5 4

a
Electrode 212 0 (disposable) 0 0 0 0 212
Hysteroscope camera system 50,500 5 0.71 59,268 20 14.1 25.5

(Olympus/Versascope/Storz)
Total cost for equipment 56,776.5 237.5

128 159
a Costs inflated from 2000 prices to 2011 using the PSSRU inflation indices.
b At 3.5% discount rate over the lifespan of the equipment.
147
c Annuitisation costs (E) calculated as per: E = [K – (S/(1 + r)n)]/A(n,r); where ‘K’ is the procurement cost, ‘S’ is the re-sale value, ‘r’ is the discount factor (3.5%) and ‘n’ is the estimated
147
lifespan of the equipment. ‘A’ is the annuitisation factor that is estimated from the values of ‘n’ and ‘r’.
d For grasping forceps (reusable three-prong forceps for large polyp and foreign body retrieval: length 1650 mm, opening diameter 20 mm) – procurement cost per year = 662.5; annuitised
cost = 773.7; cost per year = 773.7/5 = 154.7; cost per patient = 154.7/260 = 0.6; including sterilisation costs = 0.6 + 0.2 = 0.8.
Appendix 21 Outpatient polypectomy cost

(bottom-up costing)
Cost per
Resource patient (£) Source Details
159
Initial clinic 86 PSSRU 30 minutes of gynaecological consultant time,
including training costa
Hysteroscopy 239.6 Critchley et al.160 Inflated to 2011/12 rates from 2004 costsb
Nurse (Band 6) 21.50 PSSRU 30 minutes
Consultant 73.5 PSSRU As above
Procedure costs 237.5 Estimated See Appendix 20
Local anaesthetic costs 0.35 Estimated See Appendix 17; local anaesthetic used in only 40%
of outpatient procedures
Total cost 658.45

a A further cost of £86 was added for patients who did not have treatment on the day of initial assessment.
b Inflated using PSSRU159 Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) index.
175
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 22 Inpatient polypectomy cost

(bottom-up costing)
Cost per
Resource patient (£) Source Details
Initial assessment
Initial clinic 86 PSSRU159 30 minutes of consultant time including

training costs
Hysteroscopy 239.6 Critchley et al.160 Inflated to 2011/12 rates from 2004 costsa
Pre-assessment clinic 78.8 PSSRU159 45 minutes of Band 6 nurse time – with

patient contact
Electrocardiography 61 NHS reference costs Monitoring Electrocardiogram EA47Z

2011/12138
Blood tests 5 Local NHS laboratory Full blood count (£2) and urea and
electrolytes (£3)
Procedure costs
Day-case admission cost 673 NHS reference costs Unit price; day-case admission
2011/12138
Nurse assessment 10.75 PSSRU159 Assessment for admission; 15 minutes

(Band 6)
Anaesthetist 24.5 PSSRU159 Consultant; 10 minutes’

preoperative assessment
Porter costs 5.25 PSSRU159 Transfer to operating theatre 30 minutes
159
Nurse cost (Band 5) 17.5 PSSRU Transfer to operating theatre 30 minutes
Equipment cost 237.5 Derived See Appendix 20
General anaesthetic 17.5 Estimated See Appendix 18

drugs
General anaesthetic 116.8 Estimated See Appendix 19

equipment
Postoperative
Recovery ward 52.5 PSSRU159 30 minutes’ nurse time (Band 6);

patient contact
Porter costs 5.25 PSSRU159 Transfer to ward; 15 minutes

159
Nurse cost 17.5 PSSRU Transfer to ward; 30 minutes
Discharge 14.75 PSSRU159 Trainee doctor 5 minutes; staff nurse

15 minutes (Band 5)
Overall cost 1663.2

159
a Inflated using PSSRU hospital and community health services (HCHS) index.
177
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 23 Cost incurred (per-protocol analysis)
Cost detaila Inpatient (£) Outpatient (£)
n = 239 b
n = 248b
General
Baseline costs 343 343
Cost of procedure 1361.3; 26.3 854.8; 46
Total procedure cost 1704.3; 26.3 1197.8; 46

Cost of related SAE (0–6 months) 126.9 (661.2) 83.6 (507.6)
Cost of related SAE (0–12 months) 168.2 (758.4) 124.1 (631.9)
n = 208 [13%]c n = 227 [8.5%]c
Total additional cost 0–6 months 56.3 (277.8) 79.2 (297.6)
n = 217 [9.2%] c
n = 222 [10.5%]c
Total additional cost 0–12 months 111.5 (404.2) 478.5 (1139.6)

a All costs expressed as ‘mean (SD)’ where applicable.
b Twenty patients did not get any treatment and were excluded from the PP analysis.
c Numbers within square brackets denote the percentage of data missing or unavailable for analysis.
179
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 24 Outcome data per protocol

(complete data set analysis)
Clinical outcome measures Outpatient, n = 248 Inpatient, n = 239
Effectiveness
6 months 0.73 (0.45) [15.3] 0.80 (0.41) [11.7]

12 months 0.81 (0.39) [9.3] 0.83 (0.38) [10.5]
EQ-5D
Baseline 0.79 (0.25) [3.6] 0.77 (0.28) [6.2]
6 months 0.87 (0.22) [6.5] 0.87 (0.2) [13.4]
12 months 0.86 (0.24) [10.9] 0.86 (0.25) [9.2]

Data are shown as ‘mean (SD) [%]’.
Numbers within square brackets represent the percentage of data missing/unavailable for analysis.
181
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 25 Cost-effectiveness and cost–utility

analyses: per protocol
PP analysis Outpatienta Inpatienta Differenceb
6 months
Overall cost 716.1 (643.4) 1639.5 (702.6) –923.4 [59.8]

Overall QALY 6 months 0.41 (0.1) 0.41 (0.1) 0.006 [0.01]
Effectiveness 0.76 (0.43) 0.79 (0.41) 0.03 [0.04]
ICER (Δ cost/Δ effectiveness) £30,780 per additional patient who feels better with inpatient treatment
12 months
Overall cost 832.4 (818.9) 1773.3 (877.1) –941.0 [75.5]
Overall QALY 12 months 0.84 (0.2) 0.83 (0.2) 0.006 [0.02]

Effectiveness 0.83 (0.37) 0.82 (0.38) –0.01 [0.03]
ICER (Δ cost/Δ effectiveness) Outpatient treatment dominates
a Cost and outcome data are reported as ‘mean (SD)’.
b Difference in cost and outcomes have been estimated by bootstrapping technique and are represented as mean
difference [standard error of the difference]’.
183
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 26 Deterministic sensitivity analyses:

per protocol
185
SO16 7NS, UK.
186
APPENDIX 26
DSA-3 (‘see and treat’ at same

DSA-1 (bottom-up costs) DSA-2 (out-of-pocket costs) appointment for all OP) DSA-4 (‘see then treat’ for all OP) DSA-5 (new outpatient tariffs)
PP analysis 6 months 12 months 6 months 12 months 6 months 12 months 6 months 12 months 6 months 12 months
Cost –1007.1 [61.1] –962.6 [77.9] –944.3 [59.7] –899.8 [79.6] –953.5 [62.5] –909.0 [76.9] –841.5 [62.5] –797.0 [76.9] –476.5 [62.5] –432.0 [76.7]
differencea
ICERb 33,570 Outpatient 31,477 Outpatient 31,783 Outpatient 28,050 Outpatient 15,883.3 Outpatient
dominates dominates dominates dominates dominates
Cost/QALY 167,850 Outpatient 157,383 Outpatient 158,917 Outpatient 140,250 Outpatient 79,417 Outpatient
dominates dominates dominates dominates dominates
a The negative values of cost difference imply that the cost of inpatient therapy is higher than that of outpatient treatment.
b ICER here refers to cost difference/difference in self-reported effectiveness at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Effectiveness and QALY difference are the same as base case for DSA-1
to DSA-5. For values refer to Appendix 25.
At 12 months, the effectiveness and the overall QALY levels in the outpatient treatment are higher than those of inpatient treatment. Thus, outpatient therapy is said to dominate
(cheaper and more effective than inpatient treatment) at 1 year in both the cost-effectiveness analysis and the CUA.
Appendix 27 Probabilistic sensitivity analysis:

patient treatment compared with inpatient
treatment – per-protocol analysis at 6 months
P robabilistic sensitivity analysis (see also Appendix 28) examines simultaneously the uncertainty in the
cost and outcomes in the PP analysis. The x- and y-axes represent the incremental effectiveness and
cost of outpatient treatment compared with inpatient treatment, respectively. Most of the values fall in the
lower-right and lower-left quadrants, demonstrating that inpatient therapy is more expensive than
outpatient treatment. The equal distribution between the left and right quadrants suggests that there is
considerable uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of one treatment over the other (based on QALY
values). In other words, the effectiveness of both treatments is similar.
600
400
QALY
difference 200
−0.04 −0.03 −0.02 −0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

−200
−400
−600
−800
−1000
−1200
−1400
187
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 28 Probabilistic sensitivity analysis:

outpatient treatment compared with inpatient
treatment – per-protocol analysis at 12 months
600
400
QALY
difference 200
−0.08 −0.06 −0.04 −0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

−200
−400
−600
−800
−1000
−1200
−1400
189
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 29 Cost-effectiveness acceptability

curve: outpatient treatment compared with inpatient
treatment – per-protocol analysis
A CEAC illustrates the uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimates by demonstrating

the likelihood of an intervention being cost-effective at a given cost threshold compared with the
proposed alternative. In the PP analysis, similar to that in the ITT analysis, outpatient treatment is most
cost-effective at baseline, as it is cheaper although being equally effective.
1.0
Probability that OPT is cost-effective
0.8
0.6
6 months
12 months
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Willingness-to-pay threshold (£)
191
SO16 7NS, UK.
Appendix 30 Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp

Treatment Trial collaborators
B arnsley District General Hospital, South Yorkshire: C Bonner, K Cannon, KA Farag, K Raychaudhuri,
M Reid and A Zahi.
Birmingham Heartlands/Solihull Hospital, Birmingham: Jan Blunn, S Guruswami, S Irani and D Robinson.
Birmingham Women’s Hospital, Birmingham: T Bingham, TJ Clark, N Cooper, J Gupta, S Madari, D Mellers,
S O’Connor, C O’Hara, M Pathak, V Preece, E Sangha, M Shehmar, P Trinham and A Wilson.
Bishop Auckland General Hospital, County Durham: J Dent, J Macdonald and P Sengupta.
Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Blackpool: C Brookes and J Davies.
Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford: M Jackson, S Jones, H Ludkin and S Riddiough.
Castle Hill Hospital, East Yorkshire: J Allen, T Cathcart, D Cox, S Ford, L Kenny, K Phillips, N Rawal,
A Rodgers and J Siddiqui.
Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, London: A Dine-Atkinson, S Kalkur, G Merriner, J Ben-Nagi, A Raza and
R Richardson.
City General Hospital, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke-on Trent: T Bingham and I Hassan.
City Hospital, Sunderland: D Edmundson, J Chamberlain, A Barge, P Wake, D Milford and E Walton.
Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester: S Arnold, M Blake, MJ McCormack, N Naddad, J Hane and
S Wood.
Kidderminster Hospital, Worcester: M Labib, T Martin, S Moss and M Pathak.
Liverpool Women’s Hospital, Liverpool: N Aziz, L Harris and D Pattison.
Manor Hospital, Walsall: J Pepper.
Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton: M Escott and G Fender.
New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton: M Saeed.
Newham University Hospital, Plaistow: A Antoniou and R Chenoy.
Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich: E Morris and M Sule.
Ormskirk & District General Hospital, Southport: A Cope, S Sharma and T Taylor.
Queen Charlotte’s & Chelsea Hospital, London: N Panay and C Rothan.
Queen’s Hospital, Romford: A Coker.
Royal Blackburn Hospital, Blackburn: M Abdel-Aty, K Bhatia, S Gardiner, W Myint and M Willett.
193
SO16 7NS, UK.
APPENDIX 30
Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield: V Brown, C Bonner, M Connor and S Stillwell.
Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh: A Horne, S Milne and J Rowan.
Sandwell General Hospital, West Midlands: A Ewies and J Kabukoba.
Shotley Bridge Hospital, County Durham: J Dent and P Sengupta.
St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester: R Biancardi, K Donnelly, L Dwyer, K Naidoo and I Pinton.
Stafford Hospital, Stafford: K Chin, T Harrison, J Roger, D Sirdefield and J Stacey.
Royal Oldham Hospital, Oldham: Z Anjum and N Aziz.
The Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne: J Bainbridge, G Cosgrove, A Desai, J Gebbie,
D Koleskas, P Ranka and M Roberts.
Whiston Hospital, Merseyside: C Cunningham and C Nwosu.
We thank the members of the TSC for their assistance throughout the project: Professor J Thornton
(Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Nottingham) – chairperson; Professor P O’Donovan
(Professor of Medical Innovation and Gynaecology, University of Bradford); E Nicholls (Birmingham
Women’s Hospital, Consumer); Professor Jon Deeks (University of Birmingham, Statistician); and
Dr Stavros Petrou (University of Oxford, Health Economist).
194
EME
HS&DR
HTA
PGfAR
PHR
Part of the NIHR Journals Library
www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
This report presents independent research funded by the

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views
expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily
those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health
Published by the NIHR Journals Library

Health Technology Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Health Technology Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Health Technology Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

VOLUME 19 ISSUE 61 JULY 2015

A randomised controlled trial of Outpatient versus

T Justin Clark, Lee J Middleton, Natalie AM Cooper, Lavanya Diwakar,

T Justin Clark,1,2* Lee J Middleton,3

Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

University, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK

Published July 2015

Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted in Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Excerpta

ISSN 1366-5278 (Print)

ISSN 2046-4924 (Online)

Impact factor: 5.116

Editorial contact: [email protected]

Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journal

NIHR Journals Library Editors

Dr Martin Ashton-Key Consultant in Public Health Medicine/Consultant Advisor, NETSCC, UK

Dr Tessa Crilly Director, Crystal Blue Consulting Ltd, UK

Dr Peter Davidson Director of NETSCC, HTA, UK

Ms Tara Lamont Scientific Advisor, NETSCC, UK

Professor John Norrie Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, UK

Dr Rob Riemsma Reviews Manager, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, UK

Editorial contact: [email protected]

NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk

A randomised controlled trial of Outpatient versus inpatient

T Justin Clark,1,2* Lee J Middleton,3 Natalie AM Cooper,4

Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

*Corresponding author [email protected]

Interventions: We randomly assigned 507 women, using a minimisation algorithm, to outpatient

List of figures xvii

List of abbreviations xix

Plain English summary xxi

Scientific summary xxiii

Chapter 2 Methods of randomised controlled trial and preference study 25

Chapter 3 Results of the randomised controlled trial 35

Chapter 4 Results of the preference study 57

Chapter 5 Economic analysis of the randomised controlled trial 71

Chapter 6 Patient acceptability and experience of outpatient polyp treatment 83

Appendix 1 Statistical analysis plan 115

Appendix 2 Enrolment form: all participants 123

Appendix 3 Follow-up forms 129

Appendix 4 Assessment of inpatient treatment experience 133

Appendix 5 Assessment of outpatient treatment experience 135

Appendix 6 Patient cost questionnaire 137

Appendix 7 Polyp treatment form 141

Appendix 8 Post-treatment discharge form 145

Appendix 9 CONSORT checklist (including details with respect to extension for

Appendix 11 Results of primary end point (treatment success): comparison with

Appendix 12 Results of adjusted analyses for major secondary outcomes 155

Appendix 13 Results of secondary outcomes: scores 157

Appendix 14 Results of visual analogue scale bleeding scores sensitivity analysis:

Appendix 15 Results of operation acceptability 161

Appendix 16 Range of procedures and equipment used within the Outpatient

Appendix 17 Local anaesthetic use in outpatient polypectomy 167

Appendix 18 General anaesthesia (drug costs) 169

Appendix 19 General anaesthesia (equipment plus staff costs) 171

Appendix 20 Equipment costs for polypectomy 173

Appendix 21 Outpatient polypectomy cost (bottom-up costing) 175