The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Barrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Pelvic adhesions can form secondary to inflammation, endometriosis, or surgical trauma. Strategies to reduce pelvic adhesion formation include placing barrier agents such as oxidised regenerated cellulose, polytetrafluoroethylene, and fibrin or collagen sheets between pelvic structures. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of barrier agents used during pelvic surgery on rates of pain, live birth, and postoperative adhesions in women of reproductive age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases in August 2019: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Epistemonikos, and trial registries. We searched reference lists of relevant papers, conference proceedings, and grey literature sources. We contacted pharmaceutical companies for information and handsearched relevant journals and conference abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of barrier agents compared with other barrier agents, placebo, or no treatment for prevention of adhesions in women undergoing gynaecological surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed-effect model. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs (1316 women). Seven RCTs randomised women; the remainder randomised pelvic organs. Laparoscopy (eight RCTs) and laparotomy (11 RCTs) were the primary surgical techniques. Indications for surgery included myomectomy (seven RCTs), ovarian surgery (five RCTs), pelvic adhesions (five RCTs), endometriosis (one RCT), and mixed gynaecological surgery (one RCT). The sole indication for surgery in three of the RCTs was infertility. Thirteen RCTs reported commercial funding; the rest did not state their source of funding. No studies reported our primary outcomes of pelvic pain and live birth rate. Oxidised regenerated cellulose versus no treatment at laparoscopy or laparotomy (13 RCTs) At second-look laparoscopy, we are uncertain whether oxidised regenerated cellulose at laparoscopy reduced the incidence of de novo adhesions (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, 3 RCTs, 360 participants; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence) or of re-formed adhesions (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, 100 participants; I² = 36%; very low-quality evidence). At second-look laparoscopy, we are uncertain whether oxidised regenerated cellulose affected the incidence of de novo adhesions after laparotomy (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.25, 1 RCT, 271 participants; very low-quality evidence). However, the incidence of re-formed adhesions may have been reduced in the intervention group (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55, 6 RCTs, 554 participants; I² = 41%; low-quality evidence). No studies reported results on pelvic pain, live birth rate, adhesion score, or clinical pregnancy rate. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene versus oxidised regenerated cellulose at gynaecological surgery (two RCTs) We are uncertain whether expanded polytetrafluoroethylene reduced the incidence of de novo adhesions at second-look laparoscopy (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.41, 38 participants; very low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain whether expanded polytetrafluoroethylene resulted in a lower adhesion score (out of 11) (MD -3.79, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.46, 62 participants; very low-quality evidence) or a lower risk of re-formed adhesions (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.80, 23 participants; very low-quality evidence) when compared with oxidised regenerated cellulose. No studies reported results regarding pelvic pain, live birth rate, or clinical pregnancy rate. Collagen membrane with polyethylene glycol and glycerol versus no treatment at gynaecological surgery (one RCT) Evidence suggests that collagen membrane with polyethylene glycol and glycerol may reduce the incidence of adhesions at second-look laparoscopy (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.77, 47 participants; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether collagen membrane with polyethylene glycol and glycerol improved clinical pregnancy rate (OR 5.69, 95% CI 1.38 to 23.48, 39 participants; very low-quality evidence). One study reported adhesion scores but reported them as median scores rather than mean scores (median score 0.8 in the treatment group vs median score 1.2 in the control group) and therefore could not be included in the meta-analysis. The reported P value was 0.230, and no evidence suggests a difference between treatment and control groups. No studies reported results regarding pelvic pain or live birth rate. In total, 15 of the 19 RCTs included in this review reported adver
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Modarresi, O. A. F., & Shakibaie, M. M. M. R. (2015) · Cited by 1,111
Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery: systematic review and met-analysis
ten Broek, R. P. G., Issa, Y., van Santbrink, E. J. P., Bouvy, N. D., Kruitwagen, R. F. P. M., Jeekel, J., Bakkum, E. A., Rovers, M. M., & van Goor, H. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f5588 · Cited by 686
Peritoneal adhesions and their relation to abdominal surgery
Weibel, M.-A., & Majno, G. (1973) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0002-9610(73)80123-0 · Cited by 463
Diamond, M. P., & The Seprafilm Adhesion Study Group (1996) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58716-0 · Cited by 457
Howard, F. (2003) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02723-0 · Cited by 457
Contemporary adhesion prevention
diZerega, G. S. (1994) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56507-8 · Cited by 345
Vrijland, W. W., Tseng, L. N. L., Eijkman, H. J. M., Hop, W. C. J., Jakimowicz, J. J., Leguit, P., Stassen, L. P. S., Swank, D. J., Haverlag, R., Bonjer, H. J., et al. (2002) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-200202000-00006 · Cited by 266
Adhesions after abdominal surgery: a systematic review of the incidence, distribution and severity
Okabayashi, K., Ashrafian, H., Zacharakis, E., Hasegawa, H., Kitagawa, Y., Athanasiou, T., & Darzi, A. (2014) · Surgery Today · doi:10.1007/s00595-013-0591-8 · Cited by 263
Diamond, M., Daniell, J., Johns, D., Everett, R., Hill, G., Reich, H., Martin, D., Maxson, W., Hoffman, D., & Feste, J. (1992) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1016/0020-7292(92)90354-l · Cited by 194
Diamond, M. P. (1998) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00057-0 · Cited by 190
Cited by
ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis
Dunselman, G. A. J., Vermeulen, N., Becker, C., Calhaz-Jorge, C., D'Hooghe, T., De Bie, B., Heikinheimo, O., Horne, A. W., Kiesel, L., Nap, A., et al. (2014) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/det457 · Cited by 2,211
Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery: systematic review and met-analysis
ten Broek, R. P. G., Issa, Y., van Santbrink, E. J. P., Bouvy, N. D., Kruitwagen, R. F. P. M., Jeekel, J., Bakkum, E. A., Rovers, M. M., & van Goor, H. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f5588 · Cited by 686
Deep endometriosis infiltrating the recto-sigmoid: critical factors to consider before management
Abrao, M. S., Petraglia, F., Falcone, T., Keckstein, J., Osuga, Y., & Chapron, C. (2015) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmv003 · Cited by 398
Endometriosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews
Brown, J., & Farquhar, C. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009590.pub2 · Cited by 270
Prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions: a review of the literature
Schnüriger, B., Barmparas, G., Branco, B. C., Lustenberger, T., Inaba, K., & Demetriades, D. (2011) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.02.008 · Cited by 254
Metadata
- Authors
- Ahmad, G., O'Flynn, H., Hindocha, A., & Watson, A.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04-30
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- CD000475-CD000475
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W1861312056
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 21.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Barrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd000475.pub3
- The paper
- Ahmad, G., O'Flynn, H., Hindocha, A., & Watson, A. (2015). Barrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000475.pub3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.