4.2 Article

Increased suicide risk among patients oophorectomized following benign conditions and its association with comorbidities

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0167482X.2019.1658735

关键词

Oophorectomy; suicide; hypertension; COPD; chronic cirrhosis; anxiety disorder

资金

  1. China Medical University Hospital
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the suicide rate among patients oophorectomized for benign conditions and its association with confounding comorbidities. Method: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of women aged >= 20 years that underwent oophorectomy including unilateral or bilateral in laparotomy or laparoscopy for benign conditions during 2000-2013. A total of 145,588 oophorectomized and 582,352 non-oophorectomized women were included with an average follow-up time of 7 years. The comorbidities assessed were hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, chronic kidney disease and anxiety disorder. Result: The overall suicide rate was significantly higher in the oophorectomized group. The rate among oophorectomized patients of 20-49 years was significantly greater than in non-oophorectomized patients of the same age group. Hypertension, COPD, anxiety disorder and chronic liver disease and cirrhosis were associated with a significantly higher suicide rate in oophorectomized women. A significant increase in suicide incidence was observed in patients with <6 years' follow-up. Conclusion: A significant increase in suicide rate among oophorectomized women aged 20-49 years was found. The decision to perform oophorectomy should be made cautiously, especially in patients with hypertension, COPD, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis or anxiety disorder. Patients should be followed for at least 6years postoperatively since the suicide rate is significantly higher in this period.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据