MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Excisional surgery versus ablative surgery for ovarian endometriomata

2005· review· en· W4240773469 on OpenAlexaff
RJ Hart, Martha Hickey, P. Maouris, William Buckett, R Garry

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryElectrocoagulationCystLaparotomyOvarian cystEndometriosisRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryLaparoscopyMeta-analysisLaparoscopic surgeryGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Endometriomata are endometriotic deposits within the ovary. The surgical management of these blood filled cysts is controversial. The laparoscopic approach to the management of endometriomata is favoured for as it offers the advantage of a shorter hospital stay, faster patient recovery and decreased hospital costs. Currently the commonest procedures for the treatment of ovarian endometriomata are either excision of the cyst capsule or drainage and electrocoagulation of the cyst wall. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine the most effective technique of treating an ovarian endometrioma; either excision of the cyst capsule or drainage and electrocoagulation of the cyst wall, with regard to relief of pain, recurrence of the endometrioma, recurrence of symptoms and the subsequent spontaneous pregnancy rate. SEARCH STRATEGY: The reviewers searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group specialised register of trials (searched 15 Nov 2004), the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966-Nov 2004), EMBASE (1980- Nov 2004) and reference lists of articles, the handsearching of relevant journals and conference proceedings and by contacting leaders in the field of endoscopic surgery throughout the world. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of excision of the cyst capsule versus drainage and electrocoagulation of the cyst in the management of ovarian endometriomata. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers assessed eligibility and trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised studies of the management of endometriomata by laparotomy were found. Two randomised studies of the laparoscopic management of ovarian endometriomata of greater than 3cm in size were included. Laparoscopic excision of the cyst wall of the endometrioma was associated with a reduced rate of recurrence of the endometrioma (OR 0.41 CI 0.18-0.93), reduced requirement for further surgery (OR 0.21 CI 0.05-0.79), reduced recurrence rate of the symptoms of dysmenorrhoea (OR 0.15 CI 0.06-0.38), dyspareunia OR 0.08 CI 0.01-0.51) and non-menstrual pelvic pain (OR 0.10 CI 0.02-0.56). It was also associated with a subsequent increased rate of spontaneous pregnancy women who had documented prior sub-fertility (OR 5.21 CI 2.04-13.29). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that excisional surgery for endometriomata provides for a more favourable outcome than drainage and ablation, with regard to the recurrence of the endometrioma, recurrence of symptoms and subsequent spontaneous pregnancy in women who were previously subfertile. Consequently this approach should be the favoured surgical approach. However we found no data as to the effect of either approach in women who subsequently undergo assisted reproductive techniques.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0410.010
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.338
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.098 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207