ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2014
Infertility evaluation via laparoscopy and hysteroscopy after conservative treatment for tubal pregnancy.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical characteristics of persistent ectopic pregnancy after salpingostomy and influence on ongoing pregnancy.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2017Article
- Long-term follow-up after laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Article
- Current management of tubal infertility: from hysterosalpingography to ultrasonography and surgery.Journal of medicine and lifeReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvaluate the cause of infertility and impairment of tubal reproductive functions in infertility patients, who suffered tubal pregnancy after conservative treatment, using laparoscopy, hysteroscopic tubal catheterization, and hydrotubation.
methodsSeventy-five infertility patients treated for tubal pregnancies were divided into two groups based on past treatment methods of their tubal pregnancies, conservative-medical group and conservative-surgical group. The severity of pelvic adhesions, tubal morphology, tubal fimbria, and other infertility factors were observed via laparoscopy. Additionally, hysteroscopic tubal catheterization and hydrotubation was used to diagnose tubal patency and evaluate the intrauterine cavity.
resultsThere were one or more factors associated with infertility in the 75 patients, among which abnormal tubal was an absolutely important factor. In conservative-medical group, 92.11% (35/38) of the patients were with bilateral or unilateral oviduct exceptions, such as adhesion around or distorted tubal, closure or adhesion in umbrella end, lumen block. In conservative-surgical group, all of the patients were with bilateral or unilateral fallopian tube lesions. As two fallopian tubes per patient, 80.26% (61/76) of the tubes in conservative-medical group was damaged, 95.95% (71/74) in conservative-surgical group. The differences between the two groups was significant (P < 0.05). However, differences between these two groups in morphology of damaged tubes, anomaly of umbrella end and occlusion of lumen were not significant (P > 0.05). Incidence of pelvic adhesions in conservative-medical group was 76.32% (29/38), which was lower than 100% (37/37) of conservative-surgical group. The difference was significant (P < 0.05), which suggested that conservative-medical treatment was more effective than surgical treatment in preventing pelvic adhesion.
conclusionFactors associated with tubal infertility affect patients who accepted conservative treatment for tubal pregnancy. In patients with a history of a tubal pregnancy, it may be less likely to compromise future reproductive function for conservative-medical treated patients than that for conservative-surgery treated patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25419397PMC4238533W2346710530What 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.