ReviewFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2010
The effectiveness of reproductive surgery in the treatment of female infertility: facts, views and vision.
Review in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hospitalization before and after delivery in fertile, subfertile, and ART-treated women.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2019Article
- Impact of cancer treatment on risk of infertility and diminished ovarian reserve in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.Fertility and sterility · 2018Article
- Inpatient hospitalizations in women with and without assisted reproductive technology live birth.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2017Article
- Uterine fibroid management: from the present to the future.Human reproduction update · 2016Review
- Progress in evidence based reproductive surgery.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of reproductive surgery is declining due to the widespread availability of assisted reproductive technology, but an evidence-based fundament for this decline is lacking. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for randomised trials evaluating laparoscopic or hysteroscopic interventions in subfertile women, studying pregnancy or live birth rates. We present an overview of the results and quality of the detected studies.
resultsThe methodological quality of the 63 detected studies was mediocre. The laparoscopic treatment of minimal/ mild endometriosis might increase the pregnancy rate but the two major studies report conflicting results. Excision of the endometriotic cyst wall increases the spontaneous conception rate (RR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4-5.5). Laparoscopic ovarian drilling results at least in equal pregnancy rates as gonadotropin treatment (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.83-1.2) but decreases the multiple pregnancy rate (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.58). Laparoscopic tubal surgery for hydrosalpinx prior to IVF increases the pregnancy rate (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.7). Removal of polyps prior to IUI increases the pregnancy rate (RR 2.2, 95% CI 1.6-3.1). Myomectomy for submucosal fibroids results in higher pregnancy rates (RR 2.2, 95% CI 1.6-2.9). The removal of intramural/ subserosal fibroids shows a beneficial trend, albeit not statistically significant (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.75-1.9). Hysteroscopy in patients with recurrent IVF failure increases the pregnancy rates even in the absence of pathology (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9).
conclusionsAlthough the limited evidence indicates a positive role for some surgical reproductive interventions, we should be very cautious in providing guidelines for clinical practice in reproductive surgery since more research is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25009712PMC4086009What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.