Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-ORG-11 standard review
Hysterectomy with ovaries kept
Cardiovascular and metabolic morbidity after hysterectomy with ovarian conservation: a cohort study.
Overview
Laughlin-Tommaso SK et al.. Menopause 2018 · PMID 29286988 · DOI 10.1097/GME.0000000000001043
Later heart and metabolic problems were modestly more frequent, especially after surgery at age 35 or younger.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
CV risk
- How was the study done?
Cohort
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
4188
- What was actually found?
Modest increase
- How large was the observed effect?
CAD HR 1.33
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Consider alternatives when possible
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports association
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Laughlin-Tommaso SK, Khan Z, Weaver AL, Smith CY, Rocca WA, Stewart EA
- Journal
- Menopause
- Year
- 2018
- Identifier
- PMID 29286988 DOI 10.1097/GME.0000000000001043 · PMC5898981
- Verification
- verified (PMID in archive was wrong, corrected) – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
EAS receives funding from Bayer; NIA/NICHD grants.
2. Research question
CVD/metabolic risk after hysterectomy with ovarian conservation
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Historical cohort (Rochester Epidemiology Project) with age-matched referents
- Population
Olmsted County women
- Country
USA
- Period
1980-2002, median 21.9 y follow-up
- Sample size
2094 + 2094 referents
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Hysterectomy with ovarian conservation
- Comparator
Age-matched women without hysterectomy
- Endpoints
De novo CVD/metabolic diagnoses
5. Actual results
- Results
Hyperlipidemia HR 1.14; hypertension 1.13; obesity 1.18; arrhythmias 1.17; CAD 1.33 (1.12-1.58). Hysterectomy <=35 y: 4.6-fold CHF and 2.5-fold CAD.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Even with ovarian conservation, hysterectomy associated with increased long-term CV/metabolic risk; if causal, alternatives should be considered.
6. Strengths
- Adjusted for 20 conditions
- Long follow-up
7. Weaknesses
- Single county
- Observational
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- ROBINS-E
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports C-ORG-10.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Applicable.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Supports association.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified (PMID in archive was wrong, corrected) |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
15. Linked fact checks
- Hysterectomy (even with ovaries conserved) harms the heart and metabolism; uterus and ovaries form a hormonal network protecting heart, brain and bone. – Studies supporting the claim
- Long-term registry data link removal of tonsils, appendix, gallbladder, uterus, ovaries and spleen to higher rates of respiratory disease, autoimmunity, cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal cancers and dementia; each organ does work the body never fully replaces. – Studies supporting the claim
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Listed in the archive bibliography only; the archive gives no specific interpretation.
- A. What was actually studied?
Hysterectomy with ovarian conservation
- B. What did the authors find?
Modestly higher CV/metabolic risks
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
If causal, consider alternatives
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Supports narrative.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Supported with authors' 'if causal' caveat. Archive PMID was wrong (pointed to a sleep/carotid study); corrected in register.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable