ArticleJournal of ovarian research2019
Effects of hysterectomy with simultaneous bilateral salpingectomy on the subsequent pelvic mass.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2019. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy on ovarian reserve in patients who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy.Journal of ovarian research · 2021Article
- Observational
- Presence and role of stem cells in ovarian cancer.World journal of stem cells · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo analyze the clinicopathological characteristics of subsequent pelvic masses after hysterectomy for benign diseases, and to compare the masses following hysterectomy with or without simultaneous bilateral salpingectomy.
methodsThis study retrospectively analyzed patients undergone reoperation for pelvic mass subsequently to previous hysterectomy for benign disease from January 2012 to December 2016 in Peking Union Medical College Hospital.
resultsA total of 247 patients were enrolled in this study, of which 80.16% (n = 198) received simple hysterectomy, and 5.67% (n = 14) underwent hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy. The clinicopathological data of patients undergone simple hysterectomy or simultaneous bilateral salpingectomy was compared. In the former group, we found that 68.18% (n = 135) of the pelvic massed were benign, and the remaining 31.82% (n = 63) were malignant. In latter group, 57.10% (n = 8) were benign (8%) and 42.90% (n = 6) were malignant. Univariate analysis showed that the age of surgery for pelvic masses in patients undergoing hysterectomy with simultaneous bilateral salpingectomy was significantly younger than that in patients without salpingectomy (median, 44.5 vs 50 years, P < 0.0001), and the time interval between hysterectomy and onset of pelvic masses was also significantly shorter (median, 2 vs 5 years, P < 0.0001). And the probability of pelvic encapsulated effusion was significantly higher for the salpingectomy group. Multivariate analysis showed that there was no significant difference of the age of resection of pelvic mass, the time interval hysterectomy and pelvic mass onset, and the probability of pelvic encapsulated effusion between the two groups.
conclusionsThe results showed that the incidence of secondary benign pelvic masses may be reduced when hysterectomy was performed with simultaneous bilateral salpingectomy. However, there was no statistical difference in the clinical characteristics and pathological types of pelvic masses between patients received hysterectomy with or without salpingectomy.
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.