Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35743348›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022

Is There Still a Place for Reconstructive Surgery in Distal Tubal Disease?

Bogdan Obrzut, Marzanna Obrzut

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

Bogdan ObrzutDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Medical College, University of Rzeszów, Rejtana 16 C, 35-959 Rzeszow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-1293-1860
Marzanna ObrzutCenter for Diagnostic Medical Sonography, Litewska 4/4, 35-302 Rzeszow, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tubal diseases account for 25-40% of female factor infertility. Mainly, they involve the distal part of the fallopian tube, and hydrosalpinx is the most severe manifestation. Usually, the management decision is made between reconstructive surgery and ART, depending on the severity of the tubal damage, patient age, ovarian reserve, and seminogram, as well as financial, religious, ethical, and psychological factors. Estimated live-birth rates after corrective surgery range from 9% to 69%. The success rate of IVF is about 30% live-birth rate per cycle initiated in women across all ages with tubal factor infertility. Surgery offers a long-term cure and patients may attempt conception many times but are burdened with perioperative adverse events. IVF bypasses potential complications of operative treatment; however, this has its own unique risks. The effectiveness of reconstructive surgery versus ART has not been adequately evaluated. The success of fertility management depends on a thorough interpretation of existing data and careful patient selection. The presented review provides updates on the most recent progress in this area.

Indexed as

hydrosalpinxperitubal adhesionsreproductive surgerytubal diseasetubal infertility

Identifiers

PMID35743348
PMCPMC9225341

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.