卵巢肿瘤与接触辅助生殖技术和卵巢刺激之间的关系:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.1007/s00404-024-07763-0
Artur de Oliveira Macena Lôbo, Victória Morbach, Francinny Alves Kelly, Francisco Cezar Aquino de Moraes
{"title":"卵巢肿瘤与接触辅助生殖技术和卵巢刺激之间的关系:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Artur de Oliveira Macena Lôbo, Victória Morbach, Francinny Alves Kelly, Francisco Cezar Aquino de Moraes","doi":"10.1007/s00404-024-07763-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong> The question of whether assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and ovulation induction are related to a higher incidence of ovarian tumors (OTs) is still controversial in the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for case-control and cohort studies that investigated ART and ovulation induction exposure as risk factors for OT in infertile women. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were employed for all endpoints.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of nine case-control and twelve cohort studies were included, encompassing 439,477 women. ART was not associated with a higher risk of OTs (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.86-1.29; p = 0.64; I<sup>2</sup> = 36%), nor when considering only borderline OTs (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.84-1.51; p = 0.42; I<sup>2</sup> = 31%). In a subgroup analysis by study type, the risk difference of OTs remained non-significant for case-control (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.70-1.78; p = 0.65; I<sup>2</sup> = 60%) and cohort studies (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.87-1.27; p = 0.60; I<sup>2</sup> = 1%). For borderline OTs, the difference between groups was also non-significant for case-control studies (OR 1.44; 95% CI 0.73-2.87; p = 0.30; I<sup>2</sup> = 40%) and cohort studies (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.75-1.34; p = 0.99; I<sup>2</sup> = 24%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, ART exposure in infertile women was not associated with a higher risk of OTs in general or borderline tumors, even when accounting for study type differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":8330,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association between ovarian tumors and exposure to assisted reproductive technologies and ovarian stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Artur de Oliveira Macena Lôbo, Victória Morbach, Francinny Alves Kelly, Francisco Cezar Aquino de Moraes\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00404-024-07763-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong> The question of whether assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and ovulation induction are related to a higher incidence of ovarian tumors (OTs) is still controversial in the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for case-control and cohort studies that investigated ART and ovulation induction exposure as risk factors for OT in infertile women. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were employed for all endpoints.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of nine case-control and twelve cohort studies were included, encompassing 439,477 women. ART was not associated with a higher risk of OTs (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.86-1.29; p = 0.64; I<sup>2</sup> = 36%), nor when considering only borderline OTs (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.84-1.51; p = 0.42; I<sup>2</sup> = 31%). In a subgroup analysis by study type, the risk difference of OTs remained non-significant for case-control (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.70-1.78; p = 0.65; I<sup>2</sup> = 60%) and cohort studies (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.87-1.27; p = 0.60; I<sup>2</sup> = 1%). For borderline OTs, the difference between groups was also non-significant for case-control studies (OR 1.44; 95% CI 0.73-2.87; p = 0.30; I<sup>2</sup> = 40%) and cohort studies (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.75-1.34; p = 0.99; I<sup>2</sup> = 24%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, ART exposure in infertile women was not associated with a higher risk of OTs in general or borderline tumors, even when accounting for study type differences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07763-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07763-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:辅助生殖技术(ART)和促排卵是否与卵巢肿瘤(OTs)发病率升高有关? 辅助生殖技术(ART)和促排卵是否与卵巢肿瘤(OTs)的高发病率有关,这一问题在文献中仍存在争议:方法:我们在PubMed、Embase和Web of Science数据库中进行了全面检索,寻找将ART和促排卵暴露作为不孕妇女卵巢肿瘤风险因素的病例对照和队列研究。所有终点均采用带 95% 置信区间 (CI) 的比值比 (OR):结果:共纳入了 9 项病例对照研究和 12 项队列研究,涉及 439 477 名妇女。抗逆转录病毒疗法与更高的 OT 风险无关(OR 1.05;95% CI 0.86-1.29;P = 0.64;I2 = 36%),仅考虑边缘 OT 时也是如此(OR 1.13;95% CI 0.84-1.51;P = 0.42;I2 = 31%)。在按研究类型进行的亚组分析中,病例对照研究(OR 1.12;95% CI 0.70-1.78;P = 0.65;I2 = 60%)和队列研究(OR 1.05;95% CI 0.87-1.27;P = 0.60;I2 = 1%)的OT风险差异仍然不显著。对于边缘性 OT,病例对照研究(OR 1.44;95% CI 0.73-2.87;P = 0.30;I2 = 40%)和队列研究(OR 1.00;95% CI 0.75-1.34;P = 0.99;I2 = 24%)的组间差异也不显著:在这项系统综述和荟萃分析中,即使考虑到研究类型的差异,不孕妇女的抗逆转录病毒疗法暴露与一般肿瘤或边缘性肿瘤的较高风险无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Association between ovarian tumors and exposure to assisted reproductive technologies and ovarian stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction:  The question of whether assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and ovulation induction are related to a higher incidence of ovarian tumors (OTs) is still controversial in the literature.

Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for case-control and cohort studies that investigated ART and ovulation induction exposure as risk factors for OT in infertile women. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were employed for all endpoints.

Results: A total of nine case-control and twelve cohort studies were included, encompassing 439,477 women. ART was not associated with a higher risk of OTs (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.86-1.29; p = 0.64; I2 = 36%), nor when considering only borderline OTs (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.84-1.51; p = 0.42; I2 = 31%). In a subgroup analysis by study type, the risk difference of OTs remained non-significant for case-control (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.70-1.78; p = 0.65; I2 = 60%) and cohort studies (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.87-1.27; p = 0.60; I2 = 1%). For borderline OTs, the difference between groups was also non-significant for case-control studies (OR 1.44; 95% CI 0.73-2.87; p = 0.30; I2 = 40%) and cohort studies (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.75-1.34; p = 0.99; I2 = 24%).

Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, ART exposure in infertile women was not associated with a higher risk of OTs in general or borderline tumors, even when accounting for study type differences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
15.40%
发文量
493
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1870 as "Archiv für Gynaekologie", Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics has a long and outstanding tradition. Since 1922 the journal has been the Organ of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. "The Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics" is circulated in over 40 countries world wide and is indexed in "PubMed/Medline" and "Science Citation Index Expanded/Journal Citation Report". The journal publishes invited and submitted reviews; peer-reviewed original articles about clinical topics and basic research as well as news and views and guidelines and position statements from all sub-specialties in gynecology and obstetrics.
期刊最新文献
Real-world data of perioperative complications in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: a prospective cohort study. High-altitude hypoxia exposure alters follicular metabolome and oocyte developmental potential in women. Evaluation of the clinical utility of NIPT-plus and analysis of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Comparison of the complications rate of different suture-passing techniques at the time of sacrospinous ligament fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Paracetamol versus ibuprofen for early postpartum pain control: a randomized controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1