Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23635745›Full record

ArticleObstetrics and gynecology2013

Risk of oophorectomy after hysterectomy.

Elizabeth R Casiano, Emanuel C Trabuco, Adil E Bharucha, Amy L Weaver, Cathy D Schleck, L Joseph Melton, John B Gebhart

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Hysterectomy versus hysterectomy plus oophorectomy for premenopausal women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Adnexal lesions after hysterectomy: A retrospective observational studyJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2019
    Article
  5. 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.

Elizabeth R CasianoDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas; and the Divisions of Gynecologic Surgery, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, and Epidemiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Emanuel C Trabuco
Adil E Bharucha
Amy L Weaver
Cathy D Schleck
L Joseph Melton
John B Gebhart
Mayo Clinic · US

Funding

Rochester Epidemiology ProjectR01AG034676 · NIA · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI ROCCA, WALTER A, ST SAUVER, JENNIFER LYNN · 2010 to 2019
$9.5M
Pathophysiology of Anorectal DisordersR01DK078924 · NIDDK · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI BHARUCHA, ADIL E. · 2008 to 2023
$5.0M
NIA NIH HHS AG 034676NIA NIH HHS R01 AG034676NIDDK NIH HHS DK 78924NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK078924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the risk of subsequent oophorectomy among women who underwent hysterectomy for benign indications and those who did not.

methodsUsing Rochester Epidemiology Project resources, we compared the risk of oophorectomy through December 31, 2008, among 4,931 women in Olmsted County, Minnesota, who underwent ovary-sparing hysterectomy for benign indications (case group) between 1965 and 2002, with 4,931 age-matched women who did not undergo hysterectomy (referent group). The cumulative incidence of subsequent oophorectomy was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and comparisons were evaluated by Cox proportional hazard models using age as the time scale to allow for complete age adjustment.

resultsThe median follow-up times for case group and referent group participants were 19.6 and 19.4 years, respectively. At 10, 20, and 30 years after hysterectomy, the respective cumulative incidences of subsequent oophorectomy were 3.5%, 6.2%, and 9.2% among case group participants and 1.9%, 4.8%, and 7.3% among referent group participants. The overall risk of subsequent oophorectomy among case group participants was significantly higher than among referent group participants (hazard ratio [HR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.42; P=.03). Furthermore, among case group participants, the risk of subsequent oophorectomy was significantly higher (HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.51-3.07; P<.001) in women who had both ovaries preserved compared with those who initially had one ovary preserved.

conclusionThe incidence of oophorectomy after hysterectomy is only 9.2% at 30-year follow-up and is only 1.9 percentage points higher than the incidence of oophorectomy in referent women with intact reproductive organs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Indexed as

HysterectomyAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOvariectomyRisk FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23635745
PMCPMC3810957
OpenAlexW2076177391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.