2022
DOI: 10.1155/2022/4667679
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Study on Risk Factors Related to Intrauterine Adhesion Based on Meta-Analysis

Abstract: Objective. Intrauterine adhesion (IUA) is a severe complication that occurs following abortion. To evaluate the related risk factors of uterine cavity adhesion by meta-analysis. Methods. The research literature on the influencing factors of patients with intrauterine adhesions published from January 2010 to December 2020 in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, web of science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM were retrieved by computer. Two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the study on vaginal microecology, the investigation indicators included were the bacterial flora density, 4–6 bacterial floral diversity, dominant bacterial species, fungi and trichomonas in vagina, also for vaginal pH, hydrogen peroxide, leukocyte esterase (LE), sialidase (SNA), 3 glucuronidase (GUS), and acetylglucosaminidase (NAG) detection kits were used.…”
Section: Dear Editormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the study on vaginal microecology, the investigation indicators included were the bacterial flora density, 4–6 bacterial floral diversity, dominant bacterial species, fungi and trichomonas in vagina, also for vaginal pH, hydrogen peroxide, leukocyte esterase (LE), sialidase (SNA), 3 glucuronidase (GUS), and acetylglucosaminidase (NAG) detection kits were used.…”
Section: Dear Editormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi, as publisher, following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of systematic manipulation of the publication and peer-review process.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%