SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the treatment of heterotopic pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeterotopic pregnancy is a rare but potentially life-threatening condition for which both laparoscopy and laparotomy are treatment options. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the treatment of heterotopic pregnancies.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Wanfang, CNKI, and VIP databases were searched for articles published up to January 2025. Studies were included if they involved women with heterotopic pregnancies, used laparoscopy as the intervention and laparotomy as the comparator, and reported pregnancy-related outcomes. Effect estimates were presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled analyses were performed using a random-effects model.
resultsTwenty-two studies involving 1,133 patients with heterotopic pregnancies were included in the final meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between laparoscopy and laparotomy regarding live birth rate (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.59–1.46; P = 0.743), abortion rate (OR: 1.28; 95% CI: 0.84–1.97; P = 0.254), preterm birth rate (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.66–1.53; P = 0.988), full-term birth rate (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.65–1.27; P = 0.575), cesarean section (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.41–1.61; P = 0.560), and vaginal delivery (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.49–2.55; P = 0.788). Subgroup analysis indicated that laparoscopy may be associated with an increased abortion rate when only high-quality studies were pooled (OR: 1.98; 95% CI: 0.81–4.84; P = 0.135).
conclusionThis study found that intrauterine pregnancy outcomes in patients with heterotopic pregnancies in the studied population (all Chinese) were comparable between laparoscopy and laparotomy. However, the generalizability of these findings to other populations requires further investigation. STUDY REGISTRATION: INPLASY202530131
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.