SynthesisJournal of gynecologic oncology2025
Prophylactic salpingectomy as a preventative strategy for ovarian cancer in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modifiable Lifestyle and Environmental Determinants of Ovarian Cancer Risk: Implications for Primary Prevention.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Opportunistic salpingectomy for prevention of ovarian cancer among the general population.Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe impact of prophylactic salpingectomy on the prevention of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains unclear, particularly in Asian populations where data is lacking. In this systematic review and meta-analysis study, we sought to assess whether prophylactic salpingectomy could reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer in the general population of multiple ethnicities.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to assess the effectiveness of salpingectomy, bilateral salpingectomy (BS), and unilateral salpingectomy (US) in reducing the risk of EOC and evaluating postoperative outcomes.
resultsThe final analyses included 6 eligible trials (5,747,056 patients), including 1 cohort study and 5 case-control studies. The analyses of these studies demonstrated that women who underwent salpingectomy had a significantly reduced risk of EOC compared to those who did not receive salpingectomy (odds ratio [OR]=0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.45-0.89; p=0.007). Five studies (5,746,469 patients) indicated a significant reduction in EOC risk among patients who underwent BS (OR=0.48; 95% CI=0.33-0.69; p<0.001). On the other hand, in the analysis of 4 studies (5,745,887 patients) that examined US, the association with EOC risk was not significant despite the protective trend (OR=0.82; 95% CI=0.64-1.06; p=0.12).
conclusionOur results indicate BS is an effective strategy for reducing the risk of sporadic EOC, but the results did not lead to the same conclusion for patients who underwent US. When a candidate or patient is undergoing a hysterectomy or has other benign diseases, prophylactic BS may be a safe surgical procedure that carries future benefits in terms of EOC risk.
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.