ArticleGland surgery2022
Influence of ovarian-sparing surgery and ovariectomy on prognosis in early cervical adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Gland surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- How do we safely preserve ovaries in patients with cervical adenocarcinoma: risk factors and predictive models.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The effect of ovarian-sparing surgery versus ovariectomy on prognosis in early cervical adenocarcinoma is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of ovary preservation versus ovariectomy on the prognosis of patients with cervical adenocarcinoma. Methods: A literature search was conducted of the PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Medline, Central, China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, and China Science Periodical Database. The subjects of the literature study were patients with cervical adenocarcinoma. The literature compared the prognostic impact of ovary-sparing versus ovariectomy surgery. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the articles. The Chi-square test was used to test the heterogeneity of the articles, and the random-effects model was used if the results indicated heterogeneity. A subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were used to examine the source of heterogeneity. If there was no heterogeneity among the articles, a fixed-effects model was used. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger test. Results: A total of 3,467 patients with stage IA-IB cervical adenocarcinoma from 5 articles were included in the meta-analysis, of whom 995 had ovarian preservation and 1,895 had ovariectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the 5-year overall survival (OS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.14). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the 5-year progression free survival (PFS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.11). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.48). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in 5-year OS, PFS and DSS between ovarian-sparing surgery and oophorectomy for early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma. High-quality randomized controlled trials are still needed to verify this conclusion.
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.