Laparoscopic surgery for subfertility associated with endometriosis
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is the presence of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity. It is variable in both its surgical appearance and clinical manifestation often with poor correlation between the two. Surgical treatment of endometriosis aims to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore anatomy by division of adhesions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of subfertility associated with endometriosis. The review aims to compare outcomes of laparoscopic surgical interventions compared to no treatment or medical treatment with regard to improved fertility. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched Feb 2000), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2000), MEDLINE (1966-July 2001), EMBASE (1980-July 2001), the National Research Register (Issue 1, 2000) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they were randomised and compared the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of subfertility associated with endometriosis versus other treatment modalities or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two studies had data appropriate for inclusion within the review. These studies compared laparoscopic surgical treatment of minimal and mild endometriosis compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only. The recorded outcomes included live birth, pregnancy, fetal losses and complications of surgery. MAIN RESULTS: Meta-analysis of the two randomised trials show improvement in infertility associated with endometriosis with laparoscopic surgery. The largest trial (Marcoux 1997) clearly supports this outcome with an increased chance of pregnancy (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.24) and ongoing pregnancy rate after 20 weeks (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.22) but the smaller trial (Gruppo Italiano 1999) does not show benefit (pregnancy OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.88; livebirth OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.28). Combining ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates there was a statistically significant increase with surgery (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.57). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The use of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of minimal and mild endometriosis may improve success rates. The relevant trials have some methodological problems and further research in this area is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".