FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2521944891> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2521944891 endingPage "445" @default.
• W2521944891 startingPage "434" @default.
• W2521944891 abstract "ABSTRACT Objective The presence of hydrosalpinx impairs the outcome of in‐vitro fertilization embryo transfer ( IVF‐ET ). Surgical methods to either aspirate the fluid or isolate the affected Fallopian tubes have been attempted as a means of improving outcome. The aim of this network meta‐analysis was to compare the effectiveness of surgical treatments for hydrosalpinx before IVF‐ET . Methods An electronic search of MEDLINE , Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) and the US Registry of clinical trials for articles published from inception to July 2015 was performed. Eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials of women with hydrosalpinx before IVF‐ET comparing ultrasound‐guided aspiration of the fluid, tubal occlusion, salpingectomy or no intervention. Ongoing pregnancy was the primary outcome and clinical pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage were secondary outcomes. A random‐effects network meta‐analysis synthesizing direct and indirect evidence from the included trials was carried out. We estimated the relative effect sizes as risk ratios ( RRs ) and obtained the relative ranking of the interventions using cumulative ranking curves. The quality of evidence according to GRADE guidelines, adapted for network meta‐analysis, was assessed. Results Proximal tubal occlusion ( RR , 3.22 (95% CI , 1.27–8.14)) and salpingectomy ( RR , 2.24 (95% CI , 1.27–3.95)) for treatment of hydrosalpinx were superior to no intervention for ongoing pregnancy. For an outcome of clinical pregnancy, all three interventions appeared to be superior to no intervention. No superiority could be ascertained between the three surgical methods for any of the outcomes. In terms of relative ranking, tubal occlusion was the best surgical treatment followed by salpingectomy for ongoing and clinical pregnancy rates. No significant statistical inconsistency was detected; however, the point estimates for some inconsistency factors and their CIs were relatively large. The small study number and sizes were the main limitations. The quality of evidence was commonly low/very low, especially when aspiration was involved, indicating that the results were not conclusive and should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions Proximal tubal occlusion, salpingectomy and aspiration for treatment of hydrosalpinx scored consistently better than did no intervention for the outcome of IVF‐ET . In terms of relative ranking, proximal tubal occlusion appeared to be the most effective intervention, followed by salpingectomy. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd." @default.
• W2521944891 created "2016-09-30" @default.
• W2521944891 creator A5057936700 @default.
• W2521944891 creator A5072891700 @default.
• W2521944891 creator A5081967822 @default.
• W2521944891 creator A5086167151 @default.
• W2521944891 creator A5086300098 @default.
• W2521944891 creator A5090381428 @default.
• W2521944891 date "2016-09-13" @default.
• W2521944891 modified "2023-10-05" @default.
• W2521944891 title "Surgical treatment for hydrosalpinx prior to<i>in-vitro</i>fertilization embryo transfer: a network meta-analysis" @default.
• W2521944891 cites W1617328014 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W1967385770 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W1973914781 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W1974766221 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W1995777506 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W1997251968 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2002177292 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2004474087 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2007286777 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2010699829 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2019994091 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2037593179 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2050563039 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2064781648 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2074147400 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2091808438 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2093492864 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2098923148 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2100475076 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2102418454 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2108116635 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2121796373 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2126668136 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2126910841 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2129821518 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2131629859 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2131701504 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2135400982 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2140855858 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2143020969 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2244856645 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2276863329 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2286344981 @default.
• W2521944891 cites W2314042366 @default.
• W2521944891 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15900" @default.
• W2521944891 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26922863" @default.
• W2521944891 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2521944891 type Work @default.
• W2521944891 sameAs 2521944891 @default.
• W2521944891 citedByCount "39" @default.
• W2521944891 countsByYear W25219448912016 @default.
• W2521944891 countsByYear W25219448912017 @default.
• W2521944891 countsByYear W25219448912018 @default.
• W2521944891 countsByYear W25219448912019 @default.
• W2521944891 countsByYear W25219448912020 @default.
• W2521944891 countsByYear W25219448912021 @default.
• W2521944891 countsByYear W25219448912022 @default.
• W2521944891 countsByYear W25219448912023 @default.
• W2521944891 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2521944891 hasAuthorship W2521944891A5057936700 @default.
• W2521944891 hasAuthorship W2521944891A5072891700 @default.
• W2521944891 hasAuthorship W2521944891A5081967822 @default.
• W2521944891 hasAuthorship W2521944891A5086167151 @default.
• W2521944891 hasAuthorship W2521944891A5086300098 @default.
• W2521944891 hasAuthorship W2521944891A5090381428 @default.
• W2521944891 hasBestOaLocation W25219448911 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C131872663 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C160099875 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C2776018949 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C2776625026 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C2777688143 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C2778279030 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C2779234561 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C2779245376 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C2780164438 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C512716672 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConceptScore W2521944891C126322002 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConceptScore W2521944891C131872663 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConceptScore W2521944891C141071460 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConceptScore W2521944891C160099875 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConceptScore W2521944891C168563851 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConceptScore W2521944891C2776018949 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConceptScore W2521944891C2776625026 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConceptScore W2521944891C2777688143 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConceptScore W2521944891C2778279030 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConceptScore W2521944891C2779234561 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConceptScore W2521944891C2779245376 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConceptScore W2521944891C2780164438 @default.
• W2521944891 hasConceptScore W2521944891C29456083 @default.

• next