Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36959873›Full record

ReviewOpen access journal of contraception2023

Efficacy of Tubal Surgery for Permanent Contraception: Considerations for the Clinician.

Julia Tasset, Jeffrey T Jensen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Open access journal of contraception, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Julia TassetDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, OR, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2713-3239
Jeffrey T JensenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, OR, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Permanent contraception meets the needs of many people certain in their decision to never become pregnant in the future. Female permanent contraception procedures became more common than male procedures during the 1970s and 1980s, when laparoscopic surgery became widely available. To better understand the efficacy of these new procedures, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a prospective cohort study, known as the Collaborative Review of Sterilization (CREST). For decades, results of this study have defined perioperative counseling around failure risks of such surgeries. However, laparoscopic technology and techniques have changed significantly in recent decades and evidence has emerged supporting noncontraceptive benefits of tubal excision. Therefore, we present here a review of updated information regarding permanent contraception failure in the modern context and implications for clinical practice and future research directions.

Indexed as

birth controlgynecologypermanent contraception

Identifiers

PMID36959873
PMCPMC10029365

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.