SynthesisMedicine2020
Effect comparison of salpingectomy versus proximal tubal occlusion on ovarian reserve: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hydrosalpinx treatment before in-vitro fertilization: systematic review and network meta-analysis.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025Pooled it
- Tubal occlusion in patients with hydrosalpinx modifies the uterine environment and improves in vitro fertilization outcomes within 7 months.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- Impact of unilateral and bilateral salpingectomy on ovarian reserve.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2025Article
- The Impact of Opportunistic Salpingectomy on Ovarian Reserve: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- 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
- Molecular Mechanisms of Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling and Its Therapeutic Effects in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe women with hydrosalpinx have lower pregnancy rates in assisted reproductive technology, and only laparoscopic salpingectomy and tubal occlusion has proven to be effective to improve the outcome of in vitro fertilization. The main objective of the present meta-analysis was to assess and compare the ovarian reserve after salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion (PTO) in the published literature. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe considered all published cohort (retrospective and prospective) and cross-sectional studies as well as randomized controlled trials that investigated changes in serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), follicle-stimulating hormone levels or antral follicle count (AFC) following salpingectomy or PTO. Two investigators (SW, QZ) independently screened the full text of all identified articles to assess relevance to our meta-analysis.
resultsIn total, 648 patients were included in 5 studies. In the analysis of comparative studies. In the analysis of comparative studies, the follicle-stimulating hormone of salpingectomy had no significant difference with that of PTO (WMD 0.46IU/L, 95% CI[-0.14,1.05]). The AMH and AFC of salpingectomy were significantly higher than that of PTO (AFC: WMD -0.80IU/L, 95% CI [-1.46, -0.14]; AMH: WMD -1.01IU/L, 95% CI [-1.28, -0.74]).
conclusionsSalpingectomy did more harm to ovarian reserve than PTO in the short-term. However, the long-term effects on ovarian reserve remains uncertain.
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.