ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Comparison of salpingectomy and tubal occlusion for hydrosalpinx in in-vitro fertilization outcome.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Term Reproductive Outcomes After Palmer-Type Neosalpingostomy in Hydrosalpinx: A Seven-Year Real-World Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Tubal occlusion in patients with hydrosalpinx modifies the uterine environment and improves in vitro fertilization outcomes within 7 months.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- Why should we check the tubes in IVF patients with ovarian endometriosis before embryo transfer? a retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The occurrence of hydrosalpinx can reduce the success rate of assisted reproductive technology. The laparoscopic salpingectomy and tubal occlusion have been shown to improve in-vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in this disease. The primary goal of this review was to assess and compare the IVF outcome following salpingectomy or tubal occlusion in the published literature. The authors included studies with at least one of the following outcomes: days of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, retrieved oocyte number, fertilization rates, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, or ectopic pregnancy rate. In conclusion, proximal tubal occlusion outperforms salpingectomy in terms of fertilization rate while offering no evident advantages in terms of days of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, retrieved oocytes number, IVF results, or problems in treating hydrosalpinx patients prior to IVF. These data may help clinicians choose the best therapy for patients with hydrosalpinx prior to IVF.
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.