Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31824635›Full record

ReviewFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2019

Adhesions and Anti-Adhesion Systems Highlights.

L A Torres-De La Roche, R Campo, R Devassy, A Di Spiezio Sardo, A Hooker, P Koninckx, B Urman, M Wallwiener, R L De Wilde

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Review in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Inflammatory cytokine signatures predict postoperative intrauterine adhesions after hysteroscopic fibroid resection: Evidence from a prospective cohort.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Observational
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

L A Torres-De La RocheUniversity Hospital for Gynecology, Pius Hospital, University Medicine Oldenburg, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, 26121, Germany.
R CampoLeuven Institute for Fertility and Embryology, Tiensevest, 3000, Leuven.
R DevassyDubai London Clinic and Speciality Hospital, Dubai, 3371500, UAE.
A Di Spiezio SardoUniversity of Naples Federico II, Napoli, 80131, Italy.
A HookerZaans Medical Centre, Zaandam, 1502, Netherlands.
P KoninckxUZ Leuven Campus Gasthuisberg, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
B UrmanKoç University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Istanbul, Turkey, 34330, Turkey.
M WallwienerHeidelberg University Women's Hospital, Heidelberg, 69115, Germany.
R L De WildeUniversity Hospital for Gynecology, Pius Hospital, University Medicine Oldenburg, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, 26121, Germany.
Pius Hospital Oldenburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The peritoneal and intrauterine cavities are lined by fragile membranes with a high-wound healing capacity, e.g. repairing the endometrium in its cyclical "injury and scar-free repair process" during menstruation. However, peritoneal and intrauterine fibrosis and adhesions can develop after surgical trauma through activation of molecular, immune and genetic mechanisms. During procedures with a high-risk of adhesions, the use of new peritoneal and intrauterine conditions in combination with anti-adhesion substances are promising measures to preserve peritoneal and endometrial function and avoid the most common complication of gynecological surgery. Highlights of adhesions and anti-adhesion prevention techniques in laparoscopic, laparotomic and hysteroscopic surgeries are discussed in this paper. Unfortunately, evidence is lacking to prove the superiority of one technique over its counterparts in terms of postoperative adhesions, such as instrumentation, type of energy, distending media, and intracavitary pressure. Additionally, there is limited evidence about the efficacy and outcomes of techniques and adjuvant measures used during adhesiolysis. The definition of a universal intrauterine adhesions classification scheme as well as a prognostic scoring system to identify women at high risk of postoperative adhesions are necessary for advising those who could benefit the most of the use of antiadhesion barriers.

Indexed as

antiadhesion agentsgynecological surgeryPeritoneal adhesionsprevention

Identifiers

PMID31824635
PMCPMC6897521
OpenAlexW2997754193

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.