{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["26(4)"],"submitter":["Park SY"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Purpose</h4>This systematic review aims to identify factors associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), including the uptake rate and decision timing, among women at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC).<h4>Methods</h4>We found 4,935 relevant studies using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO on July 6, 2020. Two authors screened the articles and extracted data. Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment of articles was conducted using the Risk of Bias for Nonrandomized Studies tool.<h4>Results</h4>Five types of factors were identified (demographic factors, clinical factors, family history of cancer, psychological factors, and objective cancer risk). The specific significant factors were older age, having child(ren), being a"],"journal":["Korean journal of women health nursing"],"pagination":["285-299"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9328615"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"pubmed_title":["Factors associated with the decision to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy among women at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a systematic review."],"pmcid":["PMC9328615"],"pubmed_authors":["Kim S","Kim Y","Park SY"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Factors associated with the decision to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy among women at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a systematic review.","description":"<h4>Purpose</h4>This systematic review aims to identify factors associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), including the uptake rate and decision timing, among women at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC).<h4>Methods</h4>We found 4,935 relevant studies using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO on July 6, 2020. Two authors screened the articles and extracted data. Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment of articles was conducted using the Risk of Bias for Nonrandomized Studies tool.<h4>Results</h4>Five types of factors were identified (demographic factors, clinical factors, family history of cancer, psychological factors, and objective cancer risk). The specific significant factors were older age, having child(ren), being a","dates":{"release":"2020-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2020 Dec","modification":"2025-04-04T09:41:40.642Z","creation":"2025-04-04T09:41:40.642Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC9328615","cross_references":{"pubmed":["36312308"],"doi":["10.4069/kjwhn.2020.11.19"]}}