Trial reportObstetrics and gynecology2018
Salpingectomy Compared With Tubal Ligation at Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03028623 (A Randomized Controlled Trial of Standard Tubal Ligation Versus Salpingectomy for Sterilization at the Time of Cesarean Delivery), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Standard Tubal Ligation Versus Salpingectomy for Sterilization at the Time of Cesarean Delivery
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of salpingectomy versus tubal ligation on postoperative wound infection in patients: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Association of patient and clinical characteristics with cesarean delivery operating times at a Texas level IV maternal center: a single-center retrospective study.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2026Article
- The potential for opportunistic salpingectomy to reduce ovarian cancer in women undergoing non-gynecologic surgery.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2025Article
- Salpingectomy versus tubal occlusion in laparoscopic sterilisation (SALSTER): a national register-based randomised non-inferiority trial.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Racial Disparities in Sterilization Procedure Performed at Time of Cesarean Section.American journal of perinatology · 2024Article
- SALpingectomy for STERilisation (SALSTER): study protocol for a Swedish multicentre register-based randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Risk-Reducing Surgery for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Prevention: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- Women's Reproductive Health Education in Catholic Academic Healthcare Institutions: Time for Transparency, Authenticity, and Reflection.The Linacre quarterly · 2020Article
- Biomaterials and Contraception: Promises and Pitfalls.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2020Review
- Relationship between the precursors of high grade serous ovarian cancer and patient characteristics: decreased incidence of the p53 signature in pregnant women.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2019Article
- The cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy versus standard tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery for ovarian cancer risk reduction.Gynecologic oncology · 2019Article
- Bilateral salpingectomy versus bilateral partial salpingectomy during cesarean delivery.International journal of women's health · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate whether performance of salpingectomy compared with standard tubal ligation for sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery increases operating time or complication rates.
methodsA randomized controlled noninferiority trial was performed at a single academic institution. Women undergoing planned cesarean delivery who desired sterilization were randomized to salpingectomy or standard tubal ligation. The primary outcome was length of time of the sterilization procedure, with the noninferiority margin set at 5 minutes. With a one-sided independent sample t test, to achieve a power of 90% with an α of 0.05, 18 women needed to complete each intervention.
resultsForty-four women were enrolled, with 19 successfully undergoing salpingectomy and 18 undergoing standard tubal ligation. Salpingectomy could not be completed in 1 of 20 patients (as a result of adhesions). Baseline demographics were equivalent between groups. Salpingectomy procedure time was noninferior to standard tubal ligation, with a mean difference of 0.5 minutes, with a mean sterilization procedure time of 5.6 minutes in the salpingectomy group and 6.1 minutes in the standard tubal ligation group (P <.05, one-sided 95% CI upper bound 1.8 minutes). There was no difference between cesarean delivery with salpingectomy compared with cesarean delivery with standard tubal ligation in median total operating time (60 vs 68 minutes, P=.34) or estimated blood loss (600 vs 700 mL, P=.09). No patients in either group required reoperation or readmission.
conclusionSalpingectomy procedure time was not longer than standard tubal ligation during cesarean delivery, with a mean difference of 30 seconds. There was a high completion rate for salpingectomy (95%) and no apparent increase in complications. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT03028623.
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.