A new tubal classification system for fertility prognosis after laparoscopic salpingostomy for tubal pregnancy
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, ISSN: 0301-2115, Vol: 203, Page: 136-141
2016
- 5Citations
- 13Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations5
- Citation Indexes5
- CrossRef5
- Captures13
- Readers13
- 13
Article Description
To assess the objectivity and accuracy of a new system that predicts the pregnancy outcomes in patients with tubal pregnancy after laparoscopic salpingostomy. 480 tubal pregnancy patients were retrospectively stratified as mild, moderate, or severe group according to the new tubal classification system in which pelvic adhesions, tubal morphology, structure, and patency were included. The follow-up was performed for 24 months to determine spontaneous pregnancy outcomes. The tubal classification was significantly associated with intrauterine pregnancy rates (mild 70.9% vs. moderate 66.0% vs. severe 41.8%, P = 0.001) and recurrent ectopic pregnancy rates (mild 2.8% vs. moderate 4.2% vs. severe 10.9%, P = 0.047). The 24-month cumulative rate of intrauterine pregnancy was 73.5% in the mild group, 68.5% in the moderate group, and 45.8% in the severe group ( P = 0.002). The 24-month cumulative repeat ectopic pregnancy rate was 6.6% in the mild group, 9.1% in the moderate group, and 15% in the severe group ( P = 0.154). In Cox multivariate regression analysis, a lack of a history of infertility [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.633, P = 0.001] and tubal scoring (mild HR = 2.408, P = 0.008; moderate HR = 2.147, P = 0.010) were significantly associated with a higher rate of spontaneous intrauterine pregnancy. Having a history of infertility (HR = 0.351, P = 0.037) and no prior abdominopelvic surgery (HR = 2.907, P = 0.014) were significantly associated with a lower ectopic pregnancy rate. The new tubal classification system significantly correlated with spontaneous pregnancy outcomes in patients with tubal pregnancy following laparoscopic salpingostomy.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301211516301269; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.03.036; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84973636410&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27285304; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301211516301269; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.03.036
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know