ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Ovarian resection in anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis: A comparison of surgical approaches.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis Associated with Ovarian Teratoma: A Comprehensive Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- The Treatment of Antibody-Mediated Encephalitis: Current, Future Therapies, Unmet Need and Patient Management.Advances in therapy · 2026Review
- Deciphering the molecular landscape of NMDAR-E associated ovarian teratomas: a Multi-Omics approach.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: For patients with anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis (NMDARE) and ovarian teratoma, "conservative" surgical approaches (complete or partial unilateral oophorectomy or bilateral partial oophorectomies) are associated with clinical improvement. "Aggressive" ovarian resections (complete bilateral oophorectomy or "blind" ovarian resections without pre-operative evidence of teratoma) are also reported, although the evidence supporting these approaches is unclear. Objective: To compare the one-year functional outcomes of patients with NMDARE who underwent conservative vs. aggressive ovarian resections. Methods: Patients with NMDARE undergoing ovarian resection between January 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2021 were retrospectively identified from three North American tertiary care centers. Primary outcome was a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 one year after ovarian resection. Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare demographic features, disease characteristics, and functional outcomes between the two surgical groups. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of studies reporting functional outcomes based on surgical approach was also performed. Results: Twenty-three patients were included. Eight underwent aggressive surgical management. There was a non-significant trend toward an association between aggressive surgical management and younger age-at-onset, higher baseline disease severity, and longer delays to treatment. There was no difference between "aggressive" (3/8, 38%) and "conservative" (11/15, 73%) management groups in achieving the primary outcome (OR Conclusions: Aggressive ovarian resection was not associated with improved outcomes in patients with NMDARE in this series. Group differences may have contributed, recognizing that patients who underwent aggressive resection tended to be sicker, with procedures performed later in the disease course. Based on available evidence, we advocate for function-sparing resection in patients with imaging-confirmed/suspected teratoma, and repeated multi-modal imaging in at-risk patients with NMDARE refractory to conventional treatment.
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.