Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39974774›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2024

Salpingectomy versus tubal occlusion in laparoscopic sterilisation (SALSTER): a national register-based randomised non-inferiority trial.

Annika Strandell, Leonidas Magarakis, Karin Sundfeldt, Mathias Pålsson, Per Liv, Annika Idahl

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03860805 (SALpingectomy for STERilization), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03860805 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

SALpingectomy for STERilization (SALSTER); a Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorGöteborg UniversityRan2019 to 2050Enrolled900ConditionsSterilization Tubal, Salpingectomy, Laparoscopy, Ovarian ReserveArmsLaparoscopic tubal ligation, Laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Annika StrandellDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Leonidas MagarakisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Karin SundfeldtDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Mathias PålssonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Per LivSection of Sustainable Health, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Annika IdahlDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Opportunistic salpingectomy to reduce ovarian cancer incidence has become increasingly common despite the lack of randomised trials investigating its safety. In SALSTER, we tested whether salpingectomy for laparoscopic sterilisation is non-inferior to tubal occlusion regarding complications up to eight weeks postoperatively. Methods: SALSTER is a register-based randomised non-inferiority trial in which 41 gynaecological departments in Sweden participated. After being reported to The Swedish National Quality Register of Gynaecological Surgery (GynOp) for laparoscopic sterilisation, women aged <50 years received study information and could consent to participation online. If eligible, randomisation was performed by the examining/operating gynaecologist before surgery, with stratification for centre, and allocation 1:1 to salpingectomy or tubal occlusion. Blinding was attempted for patients but was impossible for surgeons. The first primary outcome, any complication up to eight weeks postoperatively, was routinely reported in GynOp through physician assessment of patient questionnaires, medical records and personal contact. Complications up to eight weeks postoperatively, a primary safety outcome, were analysed in the per-protocol population. The non-inferiority margin for the difference in the absolute risk of complications was defined as ten percentage points. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation. SALSTER was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03860805). Findings: Between April 4, 2019, and March 31, 2023, 539 women were randomised to salpingectomy and 527 to tubal occlusion. In the salpingectomy and tubal occlusion arms, 40 and 18 women discontinued their participation in the trial and another 26 and 10 did not receive the allocated surgery, respectively. Calculated on imputed data, any complication up to eight weeks postoperatively occurred in 8.1% (38.5/473) of patients after salpingectomy and in 6.2% (31.0/499) of patients after tubal occlusion. The risk difference was 1.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval -1.4 to 5.3). Interpretation: Laparoscopic salpingectomy is non-inferior to tubal occlusion regarding complication rates up to eight weeks postoperatively. Funding: This research was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, the Lena Wäppling foundation, the Swedish state under the ALF-agreement, Umeå University, County of Värmland, and Gothenburg Society of Medicine.

Indexed as

Epithelial ovarian cancerLaparoscopic sterilisationOpportunistic salpingectomyRandomised controlled trialTubal ligationTubal occlusion

Identifiers

PMID39974774
PMCPMC11838100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.