Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31288827›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

Ovarian function after the use of various hemostatic techniques during treatment for endometrioma: protocol for a randomized clinical trial.

Raquel Silveira da Cunha Araujo, Sabina Bastos Maia, Clara Micalli Ferruzzi Baracat, Moisés Diogo Lima, Eduardo Sérgio Sousa Soares, Helizabet Salomão Abdalla Ayroza Ribeiro, Paulo Augusto Ayroza Galvão Ribeiro

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Raquel Silveira da Cunha AraujoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lauro Wanderley University Hospital, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil. raquel.silveira@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9537-9943
Sabina Bastos MaiaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lauro Wanderley University Hospital, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil.
Clara Micalli Ferruzzi BaracatGynecological Endoscopy and Endometriosis Division, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Casa de São Paulo School of Medical Science, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Moisés Diogo LimaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lauro Wanderley University Hospital, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil.
Eduardo Sérgio Sousa SoaresDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lauro Wanderley University Hospital, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil.
Helizabet Salomão Abdalla Ayroza RibeiroGynecological Endoscopy and Endometriosis Division, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Casa de São Paulo School of Medical Science, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Paulo Augusto Ayroza Galvão RibeiroGynecological Endoscopy and Endometriosis Division, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Casa de São Paulo School of Medical Science, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Universidade Federal da Paraíba · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic cystectomy is currently considered the gold standard for the treatment of ovarian endometrioma, resulting in an improvement in symptoms, a lower recurrence rate, and a higher pregnancy rate among infertile patients. However, this treatment is not free from risk, since it is associated with a reduction in ovarian reserve. There is still controversy in the literature regarding whether the cause of the reduction in ovarian reserve is due to damage caused by the coagulation energy during hemostasis or whether the procedure itself is the cause of the damage irrespective of the hemostatic method used. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of different hemostatic methods on the ovarian function of women subjected to laparoscopic surgery for ovarian endometrioma.

methodsAn open-label randomized clinical trial to be conducted at the Lauro Wanderley University Hospital between December 2017 and August 2020. Eighty-four patients will be randomly allocated to three groups according to the hemostatic technique used during laparoscopic surgery for ovarian endometrioma: bipolar coagulation; laparoscopic suture; and hemostatic matrix. Ovarian function will be assessed by serum anti-Müllerian hormone measurement and by performing an antral follicle count using ultrasound before surgery and one, three, and six months after surgery. The internal review board of the Medical Sciences Center, Federal University of Paraíba approved the study protocol under reference CAAE 71621717.9.0000.8069. DISCUSSION: Bearing in mind the need for more randomized clinical trials to clarify this issue, we hope to contribute with data that will determine whether there is any difference between hemostatic methods despite the rational use of bipolar energy or whether the procedure itself explains the ovarian damage irrespective of the hemostatic technique used.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NTC03430609 . Registered on XX.10/31/2017. ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN11469394 . Registered on XX.17/12/2017. Unique Protocol ID: U1111-1203-2508.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresHemostatic TechniquesLaparoscopyOvarian ReserveAnti-Mullerian HormoneBiomarkersBlood Loss, SurgicalBrazilEndometriosisFemaleHumansOvarian CystsOvarian FollicleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeAnti-Mullerian HormoneBiomarkersAnti-Mullerian hormoneEndometriomaLaparoscopyOvarian reserve

Identifiers

PMID31288827
PMCPMC6617678
OpenAlexW2958310395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.