| Title |
The impact of previous ovarian surgery on ovarian reserve in patients with endometriosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Women's Health, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12905-015-0230-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hsin-Ju Chiang, Pin-Yao Lin, Fu-Jen Huang, Fu-Tsai Kung, Yu-Ju Lin, Pei-Hsun Sung, Kuo-Chung Lan |
| Abstract |
To investigate the impact of previous ovarian surgery on ovarian reserve in patients with endometriosis. A total of 829 female patients were recruited. Their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. Patients who had diagnoses of endometriosis or endometrioma were defined as the endometriosis group, and those without endometriosis were as the control group. We further divided these patients into four groups according to whether they had received ovarian surgeries before. Group 1: control group without previous surgery; Group 2: control group with previous surgery; Group 3: endometriosis group without previous surgery; Group 4: endometriosis group with previous surgery. The subgroups with endometrioma or not and different operative procedures were also analyzed. The parameters for comparison included age, body mass index, serum estradiol, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, cancer antigen 125, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level. The level of serum AMH was highest in group 1 and lowest in group 4. The decline was significant between group 1 and group 4 (p < 0.05). The serum AMH level was lower in group 4 than in group 3 but no significant difference. Serum estradiol level was significantly higher in group 3 than in group 2 (p < 0.05). Cancer antigen 125 levels were both significantly higher in group 3 and group 4 as compared with group 1 and group 2 (p < 0.05). Performing repeated ovarian surgery in patients with recurrent endometriosis needs careful consideration and adequate patient counselling because of the predictable deteriorating ovarian reserve. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 58% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,298,249
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#1,647
of 1,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,422
of 267,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#30
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 267,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.