ArticleBMJ open2024
Fertility-sparing surgery versus radical surgery for micropapillary serous borderline ovarian tumours: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMicropapillary serous borderline ovarian tumours (MP-SBOTs) are an aggressive subtype of serous borderline ovarian tumours (SBOTs). Surgery is the mainstay of treatment. Radical surgery (RS, including debulking) is an alternative. However, for patients who are of reproductive age, another treatment option is fertility-sparing surgery (FSS). Up to now, the best surgical approach for MP-SBOTs and whether different procedures will have an impact on postoperative recurrence are still up for debate. This protocol outlines a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether FSS adversely affected outcomes compared with RS in patients with MP-SBOTs. Additionally, we will do a prognosis analysis of BOTs with no microcapillary pattern and MP-SOBTs, if possible. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol will consider non-randomised studies comparing outcomes in patients with MP-SBOTs treated with RS or FSS. The following databases will be searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, China Biological Medicine Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wan Fang database. We will try our best to search the grey literature to avoid missing crucial research. Data collection and extraction will be performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of intervention will be used to assess non-randomized studies. We will assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADEpro methodology and describe the degree of certainty of our results using suggested wording based on the GRADEpro assessment. We will conduct a meta-analysis and offer summary statistics for each result if there is enough data available. Instead, we will report the findings narratively where the data do not permit a statistical assessment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required for this study. Results will be published through a peer-reviewed publication and communicated at scientific events once complete. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023439136.
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.