ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Investigation of the female genital tract microbiome and its association with hydrosalpinx in women undergoing salpingectomy.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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.
- Characteristics in the uterine cavity microbiota of infertile women with hydrosalpinx or endometrial polyps revealed by shotgun metagenomics.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Endometrial microbiome during early pregnancy among women with and without chronic endometritis: a pilot study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the microbiome of the vagina and fallopian tubes (FT) and its relation with hydrosalpinx.
methodsCase-control study was conducted in women who underwent salpingectomy for hydrosalpinx (case) or other indications (controls). Samples were obtained during surgery and subjected to 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, and analyses of alpha diversity and beta diversity measures were compared between sites and groups. Differential abundance of bacteria associated with vaginal dysbiosis was compared between cases and controls.
resultsNine women with hydrosalpinx and 23 women without hydrosalpinx were included in the study. The mean age of studied women was 41 (range: 29-54) and most (89%) were premenopausal. After in silico decontamination, only 30% of control FT samples and 10% of case FT samples had evidence of bacterial presence. The vaginal microbiome of control patients showed greater abundance of lactobacilli, whereas the vaginal microbiome of case patients contained relatively more bacterial vaginosis-associated bacteria, such as Prevotella and Atopobium. A significant difference was found in alpha and beta diversity between vaginal and FT microbiomes in control patients as FT samples were more diverse. We found that women with hydrosalpinx had a more "dysbiotic" vaginal microbiome and in women without hydrosalpinx, microbial composition within the vagina and FT differed, possibly representing two distinct ecological environments.
conclusionWomen undergoing salpingectomy for various reasons harbored bacteria within their FT, while women with hydrosalpinx generally did not. This suggests that even though infection may be an underlying cause of hydrosalpinx, bacteria may not be present by the time patients require surgery.
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.