MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406598078 · doi:10.1002/ijgo.16147

Comparison of ovarian reserve after laparoscopic cystectomy in patients with ovarian endometriosis differ in cyst size: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2025· review· en· W4406598078 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W Liu, Tingting Zhao, Zetong Zheng, Jia Xin Huang, Jifan Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong Province
KeywordsMedicineOvarian reserveAntral follicleAnti-Müllerian hormoneMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryCystectomyConfidence intervalLaparoscopyEndometriosisSubgroup analysisGynecologyCystInternal medicineUrologyOvarySurgeryInfertilityHormonePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Whether cyst size affects ovarian reserve before and after surgery remains controversial. Objective The objective of this study is to determine whether cyst size causes differences in pre‐ and post‐ovarian reserve impairment among patients with endometrioma. Search Strategy PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched from inception to October 13, 2023. Selection Criteria We included prospective studies comparing the ovarian reserve parameters of patients with endometrioma preoperatively and at different time points postoperatively between large and small groups, determined by self‐defined cut‐off values in eligible studies. Data Collection and Analysis Bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for outcome measures. Main Outcome Measure(s) The main outcome measures are serum anti‐Müllerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) preoperatively and at different time points postoperatively (primary and secondary aims). Main Results Seven trials (603 participants) were included, all of which qualified for meta‐analysis. Irrespective of the cut‐off values, the SMD showed that the serum AMH level was significantly lower in large groups at 1 month postoperatively (SMD = −0.515 ng/mL, 95% CI [−0.858, −0.172], P = 0.003, = 44.3%). Subgroup analyses indicated that when the cut‐off values were limited to 5 cm in diameter, the AMH levels were significantly lower in large groups (SMD = −0.822 ng/mL, 95% CI [−1.605, −0.039], P = 0.040, = 58.3%) 1 month after the surgery, and when cut‐off values were limited to 7 cm, even at 3 months postoperatively, the serum AMH levels of patients with large endometrioma were still significantly lower than those with small endometrioma (SMD = −0.531 ng/mL, 95% CI [−0.818, −0.245], P = 0.000, = 0.0%). However, when cut‐off values were not limited, the serum AMH levels did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) between the groups preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Additionally, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in the AFC between the groups preoperatively and 1 month postoperatively. Conclusion AMH in patients with different endometrioma sizes recovered to the same level at 6 months postoperatively. Our study provides guidance for the clinical prognostic assessment of patients with large endometriomas after laparoscopic cystectomy. Systematic review registration: CRD42023481967(PROSPERO).

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)0.028
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 score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.034
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207