ArticleGynecological surgery2012
Ectopic pregnancy: when is expectant management safe?
Article in Gynecological surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing decision-making in tubal ectopic pregnancy using a machine learning approach to expectant management: a clinical article.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Review
- Unexpected rupture of an expectantly managed tubal ectopic pregnancy: a reminder for enhanced diligence.BMJ case reports · 2019Article
- The Role of Serum Beta hCG in Early Diagnosis and Management Strategy of Ectopic Pregnancy.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016Article
- Ectopic pregnancy secondary to in vitro fertilisation-embryo transfer: pathogenic mechanisms and management strategies.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate expectant management in asymptomatic patients with an initial serum beta-hCG titer of <2,500 IU/l and to determine the independent ability of initial serum beta-hCG titers and trend of serum beta-hCG to predict successful expectant management. A cohort of patients (N = 418) with suspected ectopic pregnancy (EP) between January 1991 and July 2008 is described. Three groups were defined: group I (n = 182), immediate surgical intervention (<24 h); group IIa (n = 130), unsuccessful expectant management (surgical intervention during follow-up), and group IIb (n = 99), successful expectant management (spontaneous regression of trophoblast). Hospital protocol was not complied in 35 cases (Table 1). Beta-hCG levels >3,000 IU/l occur in our expectant management group; however, none of these cases were successful. Unnecessary surgery was prevented in 14% (n = 7) of asymptomatic patients with initial beta-hCG of >2,000 IU/l. The success rate of expectant management was 49%, without a rise in complication rate or number of acute cases. In conclusion, the initial serum beta-hCG cutoff level of 2,000 IU/l is not a rigid upper limit for accepting expectant management in suspected EP and best practice is case specific. In asymptomatic patients, the serum beta-hCG cutoff level of at least 2,500 IU/l can be used for expectant management. This cutoff could be higher, but interpretation is limited due to censure in follow-up inherent to the predefined clinical protocol. There is no gain in including patients for expectant management with initial serum beta-hCG level >3,000 IU/l.
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.