ArticleReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2024
Analysis of Fertility Prognosis and Risk Factors in Patients Post-Gestational Trophoblastic Disease.
Article in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
To retrospectively analyze the fertility outcomes and prognosis of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD) patients, providing a basis for targeted fertility guidance and counseling. 82 GTD patients of childbearing age who received treatment at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of Lanzhou University First Hospital from January 2016 to January 2023 were stratified into re-pregnancy (n = 20) and non-re-pregnancy (n = 33) cohorts based on their pregnancy outcomes. The impacts of various factors on pregnancy outcomes were subsequently evaluated, encompassing the rates of subsequent pregnancies, live births, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and ongoing pregnancies. Finally, logistics regression model was employed to analyze the risk factors affecting re-pregnancy in GTD patients. The study delineated those patients with different GTD pathologies had varying re-pregnancy rates (mole, erosive mole and choriocarcinoma accounted for 66.04%, 30.19% and 3.77%, respectively). Treatment predominantly involved uterine curettage, with fewer cases receiving chemotherapy alone or in conjunction with curettage accounted for 67.92%, 5.66%, and 26.42%, respectively. The average chemotherapy frequency was 4.59 ± 2.43 sessions, and a majority sought reproductive counseling. Re-pregnancy occurred in 37.74% of patients. The live birth rate was 65.00%, with miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy rates at 25.00% and 5.00% respectively. Logistic regression analysis pinpointed the absence of pre-pregnancy counseling as a significant independent risk factor for re-pregnancy in GTD patients (p < 0.05). While chemotherapy may influence ovarian function, with the majority of patients desiring children post-recovery, pregnancy rates remain high. Fertility counseling significantly enhances re-pregnancy success rates in GTD survivors, emphasizing its recommendation for those aiming to conceive post-recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39026051What 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.