ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Reproductive outcomes after expectant management and 5- versus 15-minute laparoscopic ethanol sclerotherapy for ovarian endometriomas: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Laparoscopic ethanol sclerotherapy is a fertility-preserving alternative for ovarian endometriomas, but the appropriate ethanol exposure duration remains uncertain. We compared expectant management with 5- and 15-minute ethanol retention protocols. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 333 infertile women with ovarian endometriomas ≥4 cm and complete cumulative reproductive follow-up: expectant management (n=125), 5-minute (n=124), or 15-minute (n=84) laparoscopic ethanol sclerotherapy. Multinomial propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) balanced prespecified baseline covariates. The primary outcome was complete cumulative live birth; secondary outcomes included cumulative clinical pregnancy, embryological outcomes, and serum AMH changes. Additional sensitivity analyses examined FSH and adenomyosis, calendar year, male factor, and an analysis retaining all 357 clinically eligible women. Results: After primary weighting, all prespecified covariates were balanced (maximum absolute standardized mean difference, 0.094). Cumulative clinical pregnancy rates were 48.4%, 78.2%, and 58.1%, and cumulative live birth rates were 42.7%, 73.0%, and 50.8% in the expectant, 5-minute, and 15-minute groups, respectively (both overall P<0.001). Compared with expectant management, the 5-minute protocol was associated with higher odds of clinical pregnancy (OR = 3.84, 95% CI 1.86-7.93; P<0.001) and live birth (OR = 3.63, 95% CI 1.80-7.30; P<0.001), and with higher odds than the 15-minute protocol (OR = 2.60, 95% CI 1.13-6.00; P = 0.020; and OR = 2.62, 95% CI 1.18-5.81; P = 0.013). The 15-minute protocol did not differ significantly from expectant management. Doubly robust analyses were consistent. In the expanded sensitivity analyses and the additional sensitivity analysis retaining all 357 clinically eligible women, the direction of the primary outcome associations was also unchanged. The proportion of cycles yielding no transferable embryo was lower in the 5- and 15-minute groups than in the expectant group (10.7% and 9.4% vs. 32.8%; overall P<0.001). The relative AMH decline was greater after the 15-minute than the 5-minute protocol (-23.7% vs. -8.1%; P = 0.003). Conclusions: In this retrospective cohort, the 5-minute protocol was associated with higher cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates than expectant management and the 15-minute protocol. Both protocols were associated with fewer cycles yielding no transferable embryo than expectant management, whereas 15-minute retention was associated with a greater AMH decline. These findings are hypothesis-generating and require prospective randomized confirmation.
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.