ReviewCureus2025
Impact of Salpingotomy on Intrauterine Pregnancy and Recurrent Ectopic Pregnancy Rates: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Ectopic pregnancy management and treatment strategies: A nationwide survey of Czech gynecological facilities.Women's health (London, England)Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ectopic pregnancy poses significant risks to future fertility and recurrence, and can be surgically resolved if the traditional approach is ineffective. Salpingotomy has emerged as a preferred surgical option to treat ectopic pregnancy, as it has been shown to preserve fertility and prevent recurrence. This meta-analysis assessed whether salpingotomy impacts the intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) and recurrent ectopic pregnancy (REP) rates. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), Ovid Discovery, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The studies meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed, and data from 2,220 patients were pooled. The statistical analysis was carried out using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software version 4 (Biostat, Inc., Englewood, New Jersey, United States). The results showed that following salpingotomy, patients reported significantly higher IUP rates (95%CI: 0.487-0.724, p=0.000). The data analysis indicated significant variation in REP rates across the studies, suggesting a high probability of patients not experiencing REP (mean effect size=0.109, 95%CI: 0.074-0.157, p=0.03). A sub-analysis of factors was also conducted, including the impact of age, follow-up time, year of study publication, and geographic location on the IUP and REP rates following salpingotomy. There was a significantly higher number of IUPs in studies published before 2020 than those published after 2020 (mean effect size=0.598, 95%CI: 0.495-0.694, p=0.013). Also notable was a significantly higher IUP rate in patients under 30 (mean effect size=0.58, 95% CI: 0.442-0.706, p=0.007). There was no significant difference in IUP rates due to follow-up time or geographic location (mean effect size=0.613, 95%CI: 0.482-0.730, p=0.964; mean effect size=0.612, 95%CI: 0.541-0.681, p=0.341). Furthermore, REP rates were significantly higher in studies with a follow-up time longer than three years (mean event rate=0.127, 95%CI: 0.098-0.162, p=0.005). There was no significant difference in REP rates across geographic locations, age, or year of publication (p=0.380, p=0.257, and p=0.134, respectively). Overall, salpingotomy provides a higher likelihood of IUP in patients below the age of 30 and has a low risk of REP. The findings underscore the importance of individualized patient counseling, balancing the benefits of salpingotomy for fertility preservation against the risks of REP.
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.