MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321749363 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000032806

Which patients with hydrosalpinx will benefit more from reproductive surgery to improve natural pregnancy outcomes?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4321749363 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hong-Juan Hao, Zhaohua Wang, Feng Li, Xiaoli Zhao, Xiao Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrosalpinxMedicinePregnancyCochrane LibraryObservational studyEctopic pregnancyConfidence intervalInfertilityPregnancy rateGynecologyObstetricsRandomized controlled trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The most common tubal disease leading to infertility occurs in the distal region, manifesting as hydrosalpinx. Tubal surgery is an effective alternative treatment. However, subpopulations that benefit the most from tubal repair surgery remain unclear. The objective of this study was to investigate the natural pregnancy outcomes of patients with hydrosalpinx after reproductive surgery and those with different grades of hydrosalpinx. METHODS: We searched the major online databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Clinical Trials) to collect observational studies on patients with hydrosalpinx who underwent surgeries to preserve natural fertility from January 2000 to August 2022. The outcome indicators were natural intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) and ectopic pregnancy (EP) rates. Studies on patients with hydrosalpinx who underwent laparoscopic surgeries and those who intended to be conceived naturally were included. Studies on patients with non-hydrosalpinx diseases, those who underwent open surgery, and those who intended to undergo assisted conception were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies was used for quality evaluation. Meta-analysis of a single rate was performed using RevMan5.3 software. RESULTS: A total of 10 articles were included in this study, including 1317 patients with hydrosalpinx. Seven studies were retrospective and 3 were prospective. It was found that after surgery for preserving natural fertility function, the IUP and EP rates of patients with hydrosalpinx were 27% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22-32%) and 4.8% (95% CI: 2.91-8.26%), respectively. In addition, the IUP and EP rates in patients with mild (n = 254), moderate (n = 252), and severe (n = 473) hydrosalpinx were 50.5% (95% CI: 38.65-61.97%), 32.9% (95% CI: 21.88-46.24%), 10.7% (95% CI: 4.76-21.88%), and 7.4% (95% CI: 2.91-19.35%), 9.09% (95% CI: 6.54-13.79%), 8.3%, 8.26% (95% CI: 3.85-18.03%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with mild to moderate hydrosalpinx will benefit more from reproductive surgery to improve natural pregnancy outcomes. However, the small sample size in our study needs to be further expanded, and the grouping needs to be more refined, such as grouping based on age. This may provide more guidance in clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.042
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.280 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207