SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008
Hysterectomy versus hysterectomy plus oophorectomy for premenopausal women.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hysterectomy versus hysterectomy plus oophorectomy for premenopausal women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Does laparoscopic hysterectomy + bilateral salpingectomy decrease the ovarian reserve more than total abdominal hysterectomy? A cohort study, measuring anti-Müllerian hormone before and after surgery.BMC women's health · 2021Article
- Accelerated Accumulation of Multimorbidity After Bilateral Oophorectomy: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2016Article
- Indications and Route of Hysterectomy for Benign Diseases. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3 Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/070, April 2015)Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2016Article
- Hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding.Women's health (London, England) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProphylactic oophorectomy alongside hysterectomy in premenopausal women is common. The decision to remove or conserve the ovaries is often based on the perceived risk for ovarian cancer and the need for other additional gynaecological surgical interventions. The benefits or harms of prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy at the time of hysterectomy in premenopausal women are unknown.
objectivesTo determine whether premenopausal women with hysterectomy without oophorectomy for benign gynaecological conditions versus hysterectomy plus bilateral oophorectomy would have a higher mortality rate and future gynaecological surgical interventions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (December 2005 to October 2007) and the following electronic databases: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2007), EMBASE (January 1985 to October 2007), LILACS (January 1982 to October 2007), Biological Abstracts (January 1968 to October 2007), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (inception to October 2007), Health Technology Assessment Database (inception to October 2007), and the Meta RCTs (inception to October 2007). Reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled and controlled trials of hysterectomy (using any surgical approach) without oophorectomy versus hysterectomy (using any surgical approach) with bilateral oophorectomy in premenopausal women with benign gynaecological conditions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, determined study quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted where information was unclear. MAIN
resultsOf the 119 studies identified, only one controlled trial was included. Therefore, a quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible. The results of this study (with two publications) including 362 women were summarised in a narrative format. No randomised controlled trials were found. Neither publication reported on the primary outcomes stated in this review. The trial showed evidence of very low quality of a positive effect on psychological well-being for both groups at one year follow up. No significant differences were found between the groups of women studied regarding any aspect of their sexuality. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThe conclusions of this review are limited by the lack of data. More research of higher methodological quality is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.