ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2025
Attitudes towards opportunistic salpingectomy among patients planned to undergo non-gynecologic intra-abdominal surgery.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the knowledge of and interest in opportunistic salpingectomy (OS) in patients undergoing non-gynecologic abdominal surgery. Methods: English-speaking patients aged 18 or older with fallopian tubes who were scheduled for upcoming abdominal general, colorectal, or bariatric surgery were approached. A phone-administered questionnaire was used to collect demographics, clinical history, knowledge of OS, and likelihood to undergo OS if offered. Chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, and odds ratios were calculated in R. Results: 153 patients were contacted, of which 68 were eligible and agreed to participate (44.4 % response rate). Of the 68 participants, 60 (88.2 %) were considered OS candidates (not interested in future fertility). The average age was 58, and 97 % of respondents self-identified as White. Forty-five respondents (75.0 %) were post-menopausal, 11 (18.3 %) had undergone a hysterectomy, and 16 (26.7 %) had undergone permanent contraception. Only 12 (20.0 %) knew OS reduces ovarian cancer risk. Among OS candidates, 15 (25.0 %) were likely to undergo OS during their upcoming surgery if offered. Predictors of likelihood to undergo OS during surgery include awareness of OS (50.0 % vs 19.0 %, OR 4.33, 95 % CI: 1.13-16.61, p = 0.025), family history of ovarian cancer (66.7 % vs 20.4 %, OR 7.82, 95 % CI: 1.26-48.35, p = 0.030), and interest in permanent contraception (100 % vs 25 %, p = 0.044). Conclusion: Among patients with fallopian tubes undergoing non-gynecologic abdominal surgery, most were appropriate candidates for OS. Prior awareness of OS, family history of ovarian cancer, and interest in permanent contraception were associated with a greater interest in OS.
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.