↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
258 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
326 Mendeley
Title
Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011031.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Duffy, James MN, Arambage, Kirana, Correa, Frederico JS, Olive, David, Farquhar, Cindy, Garry, Ray, Barlow, David H, Jacobson, Tal Z, Duffy, James M N, Correa, Frederico J S

Abstract

Endometriosis is the presence of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity and is associated with pain and subfertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy. To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of painful symptoms and subfertility associated with endometriosis. This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group including searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and trial registries from inception to July 2013. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were selected in which the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery used to treat pain or subfertility associated with endometriosis was compared with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment or diagnostic laparoscopy only. Selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data were performed independently by two review authors with disagreements resolved by a third review author. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methods. Ten RCTs were included in the review. The studies randomised 973 participants experiencing pain or subfertility associated with endometriosis. Five RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision versus diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision versus diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision versus ablation. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation versus diagnostic laparoscopy and injectable gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRHa) (goserelin) with add-back therapy. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly-described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and risk of attrition bias.Laparoscopic surgery was associated with decreased overall pain (measured as 'pain better or improved') compared with diagnostic laparoscopy, both at six months (odds ratio (OR) 6.58, 95% CI 3.31 to 13.10, 3 RCTs, 171 participants, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence) and at 12 months (OR 10.00, 95% CI 3.21 to 31.17, 1 RCT, 69 participants, low quality evidence). Compared with diagnostic laparoscopy, laparoscopic surgery was also associated with an increased live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.16, P = 0.007, 2 RCTs, 382 participants, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence) and increased clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86, P = 0.003, 3 RCTs, 528 participants, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence). Two studies collected data on adverse events (including infection, vascular and visceral injury and conversion to laparotomy) and reported no events in either arm. Other studies did not report this outcome. The similar effect of laparoscopic surgery and diagnostic laparotomy on the rate of miscarriage per pregnancy was imprecise (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54, 2 studies, 112 women, moderate quality evidence).When laparoscopic ablation was compared with diagnostic laparoscopy plus medical therapy (GnRHa plus add-back therapy), more women in the ablation group reported that they were pain free at 12 months (OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.18 to 26.85, 1 RCT, 35 participants, low quality evidence).The difference between laparoscopic ablation and laparoscopic excision in the proportion of women reporting overall pain relief at 12 months on a VAS 0 to 10 pain scale was 0 (95% CI -1.22 to 1.22, P = 1.00, 1 RCT, 103 participants, low quality evidence). There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery to treat mild and moderate endometriosis reduces overall pain and increases live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates. There is low quality evidence that laparoscopic excision and ablation were similarly effective in relieving pain, although there was only one relevant study. More research is needed considering severe endometriosis, different types of pain associated with endometriosis (for example dysmenorrhoea (pain with menstruation)) and comparing laparoscopic interventions with holistic and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 326 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 325 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 61 19%
Student > Master 40 12%
Researcher 33 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 9%
Other 23 7%
Other 60 18%
Unknown 80 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 142 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 7%
Psychology 11 3%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 2%
Other 36 11%
Unknown 96 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 10 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,413,632
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,136
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,599
of 239,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#112
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 239,559 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 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 52% of its contemporaries.