CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-18). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2832 · Search date 2026-08-18 · Methodology v0.7

Laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy,
does it really help with Noninferiority to tubal occlusion for surgical complications through eight weeks after permanent contraception?

30-Second Summary
B
Evidence Grade B · 72 · Safety caution
Laparoscopic salpingectomy was noninferior to tubal occlusion for eight-week surgical complications
Severe short-term complications were rare, but the margin was broad and long-term ovarian-function results remain unreported.
What the
research shows
The grade is B with 72 points. In SALSTER's multiply imputed per-protocol analysis, any complication through eight weeks occurred in 8.1% after salpingectomy and 6.2% after tubal occlusion: absolute difference 1.9 percentage points (95% CI -1.4 to 5.3). The 5.3-point upper bound was below the prespecified 10-point margin.
What the
ads claim
Five existing contraception verdicts in the corpus concern contraceptive use, continuation, access, or other interventions. SALSTER instead compares which permanent-contraception operation to perform.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Severe complications occurred in one participant (0.2%) in each group.
  • Salpingectomy can require more operative steps, dissection, ports, and time than occlusion.
  • The second long-term primary outcome, age at natural menopause, was not reported in this paper.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2832 · B 72
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

Forty-one Swedish gynecology departments randomized 1,066 participants, 539 versus 527. The prespecified primary population was per protocol, appropriate for noninferiority, with 473 versus 499 analyzed using multiple imputation; full-analysis-set and complete-case sensitivity analyses were similar. Limitation name: noninferiority design. Which listed item: noninferiority design. Was it avoidable: yes - a superiority design could test fewer complications, but the study asked whether the added surgical extent accepted for possible cancer prevention was no more than 10 points worse. Substantial attrition (>=15%): 94/1,066 (8.8%) were outside the primary PP population, so not applicable. Active comparator only: unavoidable - sham laparoscopic sterilization would not provide contraception and was not counted. Public and nonprofit funders were the Swedish Cancer Society, Lena Wäppling Foundation, Swedish ALF agreement, Umeå University, County of Värmland, and Gothenburg Society of Medicine.

02

Why this is classified as B (72)

A large publicly funded registry-based randomized trial found actual eight-week complications within a prespecified 10-point margin. A single pivotal trial and noninferiority design give B with 72 points.

Counterpoint. The 10-point margin was larger than the observed 6.2% control event rate. Noninferiority is not proof of identical risk, and the point estimate was 1.9 points higher after salpingectomy.

Rejudgment record. Article and registry cross-check — SALSTER's prespecified PP analysis, multiple imputation, eight-week absolute difference, 10-point margin, and public funding

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (B).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Noninferiority for any surgical complication through eight weeksBThe 5.3-point upper bound was below the 10-point margin.
Reduced ovarian-cancer incidence?This was not the reported primary endpoint and was not directly measured.
Preserved long-term ovarian function?Age at natural menopause has not yet been reported.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Swedish national registry-based randomized noninferiority trial499Public and nonprofit Swedish cancer-society, ALF, university, regional, and foundation fundingAny physician-assessed complication through eight postoperative weeks8.1% versus 6.2%; absolute difference 1.9 points (95% CI -1.4 to 5.3); RR 1.33 (0.82 to 2.10); 10-point noninferiority marginPivotal single short-term surgical-safety trial
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-18).

Strandell A, et al. Salpingectomy versus tubal occlusion in laparoscopic sterilisation (SALSTER): a national register-based randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024;45:101026. PMID: 39974774. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101026.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-18 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Laparoscopic Bilateral Salpingectomy for Eight-Week Surgical Complications in Permanent Contraception - Benefit Evidence Grade B card
[Chamgap] Laparoscopic Bilateral Salpingectomy for Eight-Week Surgical Complications in Permanent Contraception - Benefit — Evidence Grade B·72. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/womens/laparoscopic-bilateral-salpingectomy-eight-week-surgical-complications-permanent-contraception-salster/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.