ArticleJournal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences2017
Evaluation of ovarian function after hysterectomy with or without salpingectomy: A feasible study.
Article in Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of hysterectomy on ovarian function: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of ovarian research · 2023Pooled it
- Hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy versus hysterectomy alone.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- The Impact of Opportunistic Salpingectomy on Ovarian Reserve: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Beyond Sterilization: A Comprehensive Review on the Safety and Efficacy of Opportunistic Salpingectomy as a Preventative Strategy for Ovarian Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Ovarian cancer prevention by opportunistic salpingectomy is a new de facto standard in Germany.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Prevention of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2023Review
- Does Saving Uterus Save Ovaries?Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProphylactic salpingectomy for the prevention of ovarian cancer has been recommended strongly. The aim of this study was to compare ovarian function in patients who undergo hysterectomy for benign reasons with or without bilateral salpingectomy. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a clinical-trial study on patients undergone hysterectomy with/without bilateral salpingectomy in Al-Zahra Hospital, in 2015-2016. Demographic information (age, height, and weight) were recorded. Follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) were measured in 2-5 days of menstrual cycle before operation. Patients were asked to refer in 6 months for follow-up, including FSH and LH re-measurement and also menopausal status examination. Patients were divided into age groups of 39-45, 46-50, and ≥51 and also groups of body mass index including 18.5-24.9, 25-29.9, and 30-34.9.
resultsA total of 37 patients divided into two groups, including 22 patients undergone hysterectomy without salpingectomy (H) and 15 undergone hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy (H-bS). The mean age (standard deviation) of Group H was 47.77 (3.03) and Group H-bS was 48.47 (2.03) (
conclusionBilateral salpingectomy during hysterectomy did not increase the risk of ovarian dysfunction after 6 months follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.