ArticleFertility and sterility2013
Validation of a clinical risk scoring system, based solely on clinical presentation, for the management of pregnancy of unknown location.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive analytical model for ectopic pregnancy diagnosis: Statistics vs. machine learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Analysis of ectopic pregnancies admitted to emergency department.Turkish journal of emergency medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess a scoring system to triage women with a pregnancy of unknown location.
designValidation of prediction rule.
settingMulticenter study. PATIENT(S): Women with a pregnancy of unknown location. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Scores assigned to factors identified at clinical presentation, total score calculated to assess risk of ectopic pregnancy (EP) in women with a pregnancy of unknown location, and a proposed three-tiered clinical action plan. RESULT(S): The cohort of 1,400 women (284 ectopic pregnancies, 759 miscarriages, and 357 intrauterine pregnancies) was more diverse than the original cohort used to develop the decision rule. The recommendations of the action plan were low risk, intermediate risk, and high risk; the recommendation based on the model score was compared with clinical diagnosis. A total of 29.4% intrauterine pregnancies were identified for less frequent follow-up observation, and 18.4% nonviable gestations were identified for more frequent follow-up observation (to rule out an ectopic pregnancy) compared with intermediate risk (i.e., monitor in current standard fashion). For a decision of possible less frequent monitoring, the specificity was 90.8% (89.0-92.6) with negative predictive value of 79.0% (76.7-81.3). For a decision of more intense follow-up observation, the specificity was 95.0% (92.7-97.2). Test characteristics using the scoring system were replicated in the diverse validation cohort. CONCLUSION(S): A scoring system based on symptoms at presentation has value to stratify risk and influence the intensity of outpatient surveillance for women with pregnancy of unknown location but does not serve as a diagnostic tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.