Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-ORG-12 standard review
UK: hysterectomy and death risk
Long term effects of hysterectomy on mortality: nested cohort study.
Overview
Iversen L et al.. BMJ 2005 · PMID 15930026 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.38483.669178.8F
Women who had a hysterectomy did not die earlier over about 20 years.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Mortality
- How was the study done?
Nested cohort
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
7410
- What was actually found?
No increase
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.94/0.82
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
No mortality penalty found
- What are the study's limitations?
Ovary status unclear
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Limits claim
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
European
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
CVD morbidity
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Iversen L, Hannaford PC, Elliott AM, Lee AJ
- Journal
- BMJ
- Year
- 2005
- Identifier
- PMID 15930026 DOI 10.1136/bmj.38483.669178.8F · PMC558457
- 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
COI: not stated in record | Grants: none listed
2. Research question
Long-term mortality after hysterectomy
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Nested cohort within RCGP Oral Contraception Study
- Population
UK women
- Country
UK
- Period
Mean >20 years
- Sample size
7410 (3705 vs 3705)
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Hysterectomy
- Comparator
No hysterectomy
- Endpoints
All-cause, CVD, cancer mortality
5. Actual results
- Results
Older women adjusted HR 0.94 (0.75-1.18); younger at hysterectomy HR 0.82 (0.65-1.03); no significant change in CVD or cancer mortality.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Hysterectomy did not increase the risk of death in the medium to long term.
6. Strengths
- Long follow-up
7. Weaknesses
- Oophorectomy status not separated in abstract
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
Contradicts/limits C-ORG-10 (mortality).
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
European.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Null mortality finding cited but not discussed by the archive.
| 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 | mixed |
| Regional transferability | high |
| 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 contradicting or limiting 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 contradicting or limiting 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?
Mortality after hysterectomy
- B. What did the authors find?
No increase
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Did not increase death risk
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Not used in narrative.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
This archive-cited study contradicts a general claim of harm from hysterectomy; the narrative does not mention it. Archive PMID was wrong (pointed to a rat smooth-muscle study); corrected in register.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable