| Title |
Opportunistic salpingectomies for the prevention of a high-grade serous carcinoma: a statement by the Kommission Ovar of the AGO
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00404-015-3697-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Pölcher, Steffen Hauptmann, Christina Fotopoulou, Barbara Schmalfeldt, Ivo Meinhold-Heerlein, Alexander Mustea, Ingo Runnebaum, Jalid Sehouli |
| Abstract |
The detection of premalignant cells in the epithelium of the fallopian tube has resulted in revolutionary theories regarding the origin of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinomas (STIC) have been detected in patients with BRCA 1 or 2 mutations and are considered as the most likely precursors of the high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), which is the most common histological subtype in patients with EOC. A bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is associated with a significant reduction in risk of developing EOC. According to various national guidelines, prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy should be performed in the age group 40-45 years. As in patients with BRCA mutations, the prophylactic removal of the fallopian tubes is also performed in women without an increased genetic risk, for example, in surgical treatments of benign conditions. There is a current debate as to whether prophylactic or so-called opportunistic salpingectomy will influence the overall incidence of EOC in the coming years. Opponents of this theory warn of a higher surgical morbidity and the higher risk of a premature menopause through impaired vascular supply to the ovaries. The value of opportunistic salpingectomies has not yet been clarified since there are currently no systematic risk-benefit evaluations. This review will attempt to give an overview of the current body of evidence regarding the risks and benefits of opportunistic salpingectomies. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2022.
All research outputs
#5,690,774
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#270
of 2,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,341
of 266,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#10
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.