ArticleJAMA network open2025
Physician Peer Influence on Salpingectomy Uptake for Tubal Sterilization and Ovarian Cancer Prevention.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Error in Conflict of Interest Disclosures.JAMA network open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Prophylactic removal of the fallopian tubes (opportunistic salpingectomy) in lieu of conventional methods of tubal sterilization helps reduce ovarian cancer risk. Objective: To examine how peer influence among physicians is associated with opportunistic salpingectomy uptake at the time of postpartum and interval sterilizations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used insurance claims data from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis database. Participants were patients aged 18 to 49 years who underwent a tubal sterilization after childbirth (postpartum sterilization) or unrelated to pregnancy (interval sterilization) from January 2020 to December 2022 and whose operating surgeon did not perform opportunistic salpingectomy at baseline (2017-2019). Exposures: Applying a Louvain clustering methodology, physician patient-sharing networks were constructed based on their billing of the same patients in claims data at baseline (2017-2019). For surgeons who did not use opportunistic salpingectomy at baseline, the rate of opportunistic salpingectomy use among peer physicians in the same network at baseline was measured. Main Outcomes and Measures: Opportunistic salpingectomy was defined as removal of both (or the remaining side of) fallopian tubes with preservation of the ovaries. Results: The overall sample included 4520 patients undergoing postpartum sterilization and 3376 patients undergoing interval sterilization in 2020 to 2022, with 4173 (92.3%) of the postpartum sterilization sample involving a cesarean delivery. Most patients in these 2 samples (3520 patients [77.9%] and 2599 patients [77.0%], respectively) were aged 30 to 49 years. In the postpartum sterilization sample, having peer physicians in the highest (vs lowest) quartile of baseline opportunistic salpingectomy rate was associated with higher odds of receiving opportunistic salpingectomy for postpartum sterilization (13.6% vs 5.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.17; 95% CI, 1.20-3.92; P < .001). In the interval sterilization sample, having peer physicians in the highest (vs lowest) quartile of baseline opportunistic salpingectomy rate was also associated with higher odds of receiving opportunistic salpingectomy for interval sterilization (42.3% vs 19.3%; aOR, 4.16; 95% CI, 1.98-8.77; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of postpartum and interval sterilizations, surgeons who previously shared patients with other physicians with high rates of opportunistic salpingectomy use were more likely to adopt opportunistic salpingectomy in their own subsequent practice. These results suggest physician peer influence in salpingectomy uptake.
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.