You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of the Fertility Outcome of Salpingotomy and Salpingectomy in Women with Tubal Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0152343 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiaolin Cheng, Xiaoyu Tian, Zhen Yan, Mengmeng Jia, Jie Deng, Ying Wang, Dongmei Fan |
| Abstract |
To compare the natural fertility outcomes of salpingotomy and salpingectomy among women treated for tubal pregnancy. An online database search including PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science was performed to identify studies comparing salpingotomy and salpingectomy to treat women with tubal pregnancy. The search included papers published after the databases were established until May 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and then extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of all of the included studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. The registration number is CRD42015017545 in PROSPERO. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight cohort studies, including a total of 1,229 patients, were znalyzed. The meta-analysis of the RCT subgroup indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in IUP rates (RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.89-1.21, P = 0.61) nor the repeat ectopic pregnancy (REP) rate (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 0.72-2.38, P = 0.39) between the salpingotomy and salpingectomy group. In contrast, the cohort study subgroup analysis revealed that the IUP rate was higher in the salpingotomy group compared with the salpingectomy group (RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.08-1.42, P = 0.002); Salpingotomy also increased the risk of REP rate (RR = 2.27, 95% CI = 1.12-4.58, P = 0.02). The persistent ectopic pregnancy (PEP) occurred more frequently in the salpingotomy group than the salpingectomy group (RR = 11.61, 95% CI = 3.17-42.46, P = 0.0002). An IUP would be more likely to occur after salpingotomy than salpingectomy when the follow-up time was more than 36 months (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.02-1.32, P = 0.03). The IUP rate (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.01-1.26, P = 0.03), and the REP rate (RR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.02-2.56, P = 0.04) was higher after salpingotomy than salpingectomy among patients from Europe compared with those from America. Based on the available evidence, we believe that for patients with a healthy contralateral tube operated for tubal pregnancy, the subsequent fertility after salpingectomy and salpingotomy are similar in the long term. The fertility prospects will not be improved via salpingotomy compared with salpingectomy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 28 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 33 | 32% |
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 26 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,449,393
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#155,111
of 194,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,896
of 300,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,295
of 5,351 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 300,413 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,351 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.