Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19597684›Full record

ReviewSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2009

Müllerian duct anomalies: review of current management.

Sérgio Conti Ribeiro, Renata Assef Tormena, Thais Villela Peterson, Marina de Oliveira Gonzáles, Priscila Gonçalves Serrano, José Alcione Macedo de Almeida, Edmund Chada Baracat

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A novel mutation of HOXA11 in a patient with septate uterus.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sérgio Conti RibeiroDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. sergiocontiribeiro@terra.com.br
Renata Assef Tormena
Thais Villela Peterson
Marina de Oliveira Gonzáles
Priscila Gonçalves Serrano
José Alcione Macedo de Almeida
Edmund Chada Baracat
Universidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to discuss the embryological aspects of Müllerian duct anomalies and to analyze the current diagnostic methods and therapy. Müllerian anomalies are congenital defects of the female reproductive tract resulting from failure in the development of the Müllerian ducts and their associated structures. Their cause has yet to be fully clarified, and it is currently believed to be multifactorial. Symptoms appear principally during adolescence or early adulthood, and affect the reproductive capacity of these women. When clinically suspected, investigations leading to diagnosis include imaging methods such as hysterosalpingography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance. The classification of these malformations relates to their embryogenesis, and defines the therapy and prognosis. Müllerian anomalies consist of a wide range of defects that may vary from patient to patient. Therefore, their management must also be individual, taking anatomical and clinical characteristics into consideration, as well as the patient's wishes.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultFemaleHumansInfertility, FemaleMullerian DuctsUrogenital AbnormalitiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID19597684
PMCPMC10964807
OpenAlexW2135991588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.