Regarding "Outcomes of vaginal repair and vaginal repair combined with GnRHa administration in the treatment of cesarean section scar defects: A randomized clinical trial"

Junfei Li,Dan Liao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2024.08.023
2024-09-26
Abstract:First, Table 2 of this study[1] compares the differences in menstruation, menstrual cycle, and thickness of the remaining muscular layer (TRM) between before VR and after VR. These measurements were taken at two different time points for the same indicators, suggesting that the appropriate statistical analysis should involve a paired sample t-test[2] rather than ANOVA. The paired sample t-test is specifically designed to account for the fact that the same subjects are being measured before and after an intervention, thereby controlling for intra-subject variability and providing a more accurate assessment of the changes induced by the treatment. Second, the description in Table 4 of this study[1] is inappropriate. For example, Table 4 describes the odds ratio (OR) for persistent CSD as 0.365 with a 95% confident interval (CI) of (-1.933, -0.083), which is clearly incorrect because the OR value does not fall within the 95% CI range, indicating a statistical error. Similarly, the OR for optimal healing is given as 3.254 with a 95% CI of (0.210, 2.150), where again the OR value is not within the 95% CI range. This error is present for all parameters in Table 4, including TRM ≥ 5.39 mm and menstruation ≤ 7 days. Therefore, it is recommended that the data undergo a thorough review and appropriate statistical analysis be performed to obtain accurate conclusions.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?