SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2024
Oncological outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery versus radical surgery in stage - epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Fertility-sparing surgery upon reproductive and oncologic results in ovarian cancer patients stage I (FIGO): a systematic review.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Female fertility preservation: 25 years of progress, expanding indications and future prospects.Human reproduction update · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe oncological outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) compared to radical surgery (RS) in patients with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remain a subject of debate. We evaluated the risk ratios (RRs) for outcomes in patients with stage I EOC who underwent FSS versus RS.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase for articles published up to November 29, 2023. Studies that did not involve surgical procedures or included pregnant patients were excluded. We calculated the RRs for disease-free survival, overall survival, and recurrence rate. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024546460).
resultsFrom the 5,529 potentially relevant articles, we identified 83 articles for initial screening and included 12 articles in the final meta-analysis, encompassing 2,906 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. There were no significant differences between the two groups in disease-free survival (RR [95% confidence interval {CI}], 0.90 [0.51, 1.58]; P = 0.71), overall survival (RR [95% CI], 0.74 [0.53, 1.03]; P = 0.07), and recurrence rate (RR [95% CI], 1.10 [0.69, 1.76]; P = 0.68). In sensitivity analyses, the significant difference was observed only for overall survival (before exclusion: RR [95% CI], 0.74 [0.53-1.03], P = 0.07; after exclusion: RR [95% CI], 0.70 [0.50-0.99]; P = 0.04).
conclusionsThis is the first and only individual patient data meta-analysis comparing disease-free survival, overall survival, and recurrence rate of patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing FSS and RS. FSS was associated with similar disease-free survival and risk of recurrence as RS. We hypothesized that the decreased overall survival in the FSS group could not be attributed to distant metastases from epithelial ovarian cancer.
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.