Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Study found that despite longer hospital stay and time to resumption of normal activities, more women were satisfied after hysterectomy than after endometrial ablation. There is some suggestion that Mirena is potentially cheaper and more effective than first-generation ablation techniques, with rates of satisfaction similar to second-generation techniques; there is limited evidence to suggest that hysterectomy is preferable to Mirena. Although the most cost-effective strategy, hysterectomy may not be considered an initial option owing to its invasive nature and higher risk of complications

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

S Bhattacharya, LJ Middleton, A Tsourapas, AJ Lee, R Champaneria, JP Daniels, T Roberts, NH Hilken, P Barton, R Gray, KS Khan, P Chien, P O’Donovan, KG Cooper & .

S Bhattacharya 1,*, LJ Middleton 2, A Tsourapas 2, AJ Lee 1, R Champaneria 2, JP Daniels 2, T Roberts 2, NH Hilken 2, P Barton 2, R Gray 2, KS Khan 2, P Chien 3, P O’Donovan 4, KG Cooper 5,

1 University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
2 University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
3 Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK
4 Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK
5 Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
* Corresponding author Email: Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document