Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35049199›Full record

ArticleMedicine2021

Fertility-preserving treatment in patients with early-stage endometrial cancer: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xiao-Li Zhao, Ze-Qing Du, Xuan Zhang, Zhi Yao, Ying-Qiu Liang, Su-Fen Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Xiao-Li ZhaoDepartment of Gynecology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Ze-Qing DuDepartment of Gynecology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Xuan ZhangDepartment of Gynecology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Zhi YaoDepartment of Gynecology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Ying-Qiu LiangDepartment of Gynecology, The Fourth Hospital of Shijiazhuang (Obstetric and Maternal Hospital Affiliated to Hebei Medical University), Shijiazhuang, China.
Su-Fen ZhaoDepartment of Gynecology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0695-1910
Hebei Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndometrial cancer (EC) is the second most common malignancy of the female reproductive system worldwide, and the standard treatment for early-stage EC potentially leads to permanent infertility. The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacies of different methods on fertility preservation in patients with early-stage EC.

methodsWe searched the major online databases (PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) to collect the research literature on fertility preservation therapy in patients with early-stage well-differentiated EC aged ≤ 40 years from January 1999 to October 2019. The inclusion was performed using the R software (version R3.5.3) meta-analysis of a single rate. The efficacy of the following three fertility preservation treatments was evaluated from four aspects, the complete remission rate (CRR), recurrence rate (ReR), pregnancy rate (PregR), and live birth rate (LBR): a) taking oral progestin only therapy, b) hysteroscopic resection combined with progestin/levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS)/GnRH-a, c) LNG-IUS or combined with progestin/GnRH-a.

resultsA total of 23 articles were included in this study, including 446 patients with early-stage EC. In the group that took oral progestin only (n = 279), CRR, ReR, PregR, and LBR were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74%-92%, P = .01), 38% (95% CI, 31%-45%, P = .35), 70% (95% CI, 62%-79%, P = .68), and 63% (95% CI, 55%-73%, P = .55), respectively. Hysteroscopic resection combined with progestin/LNG-IUS/GnRH-a therapy group (n = 96) achieved a CRR, ReR, PregR, and LBR of 95% (95% CI, 90%-100%, P = .42), 16% (95% CI, 6%-39%, P = .03), 84% (95% CI, 73%-96%, P = .39), and 72% (95% CI, 59%-87%, P = .28), respectively. LNG-IUS or combined with progestin/GnRH-a therapy group (n = 91) achieved a CRR, ReR, PregR, and LBR of 69% (95% CI, 54%-89%, P < .01), 30% (95% CI, 19%-49%, P = .36), 48% (95% CI, 18%-100%, P < .01), and 36% (95% CI, 10%-100%, P < .01), respectively.

conclusionIt is safe and effective for young patients with early-stage EC to receive oral progestin, hysteroscopic resection combined with progestin/LNG-IUS/GnRH-a, LNG-IUS, or progestin/GnRH-a. INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI 10.37766/inplasy2020.12.0137.

Indexed as

Fertility PreservationIntrauterine Devices, MedicatedContraceptive Agents, HormonalEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHumansLevonorgestrelMeta-Analysis as TopicPregnancyProgestinsSystematic Reviews as TopicContraceptive Agents, HormonalGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneLevonorgestrelProgestins

Identifiers

PMID35049199
PMCPMC9191341
OpenAlexW4200614163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.