ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2022
A systematic review of the reproductive and oncologic outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery for early-stage cervical cancer
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Oncological and reproductive outcomes of conization combined with pelvic node evaluation in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Trachelectomy and Cerclage Placement as Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Cervical Cancer-An Expert Survey.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of reproductive and oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery in cervical cancer patients with tumor > 2 cm.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2025Article
- Surgical Deescalation Within Gynecologic Oncology.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Challenges in the Diagnosis and Individualized Treatment of Cervical Cancer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this review, we aim to evaluate the current literature on reproductive and oncologic outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery for early-stage cervical cancer (stage IA1-IB1). This is a systematic review of the existing literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist to report on fertility-sparing surgery and its outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer. Outcomes of interest were subsequent clinical pregnancy rate, reproductive outcomes, and cancer recurrence outcomes. Included in this systematic review were 68 studies encompassing 3,592 patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery. Of these, reproductive outcomes were reported in 1096 pregnancies. The mean clinical pregnancy rate was 53.2%. Those who underwent vaginal radical trachelectomy had the highest clinical pregnancy rate (67.5%). The mean live birth rate was 67.8% in our study. Twenty-one percent of pregnancies after fertility-sparing surgery required assisted reproductive technology. The mean cancer recurrence rate was 3.2%, and the cancer death rate was 0.6% after a median follow-up period of 40.1 months with no statistically significant difference across surgical approaches. Offering fertility-sparing surgery in early-stage cervical cancer is reasonable. Highest clinical pregnancy rate is associated with vaginal radical trachelectomy. Moreover oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive approaches were comparable with abdominal approaches. We encourage detailed preoperative counseling and multidisciplinary approach to achieve best outcomes.
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.