ArticleScientific reports2023
Conservative management of early-stage endometrial cancer for fertility preservation: a survey study among Swedish gynecologists and gynecological oncologists.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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.
- Advances in the application of assisted reproductive technology in fertility preservation for female patients with malignant tumours of the reproductive systems.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- Emerging drug delivery approach using nanomaterials for the treatment of endometrial cancer.Frontiers in medical technology · 2025Review
- Fertility Preservation in Female Patients with Cancer. Part I: Challenges and Future Prospects in Developing Countries; A Narrative Review Study.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conservative management of endometrial cancer (CMEC) is viable for women with early-stage disease wishing to preserve fertility, but there is poor knowledge regarding clinicians' attitudes towards treatment or guidelines adherence. This 55-item survey study investigated CMEC-related experience, practice and attitudes among clinically active Swedish gynecologists and gynecological oncologists, focusing on reproductive eligibility criteria. The survey consisted of a general and two specific subsets, selectively delivered to clinicians active in infertility (subset A) and endometrial cancer (subset B) care. Answers from 218 clinicians were included. More than half agreed on CMEC whereas only 5% explicitly disagreed. The majority supported a fertility work-up to substantiate reasonable chances to pregnancy and live birth. Most disagreed about CMEC in case of previous unsuccessful fertility treatments, while more than 1/3 disagreed about CMEC in known fertility problems, recurrent miscarriages or previous children. Over 50% of respondents in subset A (n = 107) found it applicable with fertility investigations such as ovarian reserve testing or, in case of male partner, semen analysis. Respondents in subset B (n = 165) agreed on items based on existing recommendations regarding the oncological management of CMEC, including the use of continuous progestins, hysteroscopic resection of macroscopic lesions, control biopsy with curettage or hysteroscopy after 6 months of treatment, pursuing pregnancy as soon as possible after complete response, and performing a hysterectomy once live birth is achieved. While many clinicians were familiar with CMEC, the overall experience is limited. Fertility specialists seem less involved than oncologists in patient care but there is broad support for fertility-related eligibility criteria.
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.