ArticleAustralasian journal of ultrasound in medicine2015
Catastrophic consequences of a caesarean scar pregnancy missed on ultrasound.
Article in Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2015. 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, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Time to Initiate Universal Screening.Oman medical journal · 2023Article
- Caesarean Scar Pregnancy: Single Dose of Intrasac Ultrasound-Guided Methotrexate Injection Seems to be a Safe Option for Treatment.Ultrasound international open · 2023Article
- Definition and sonographic reporting system for Cesarean scar pregnancy in early gestation: modified Delphi method.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2022Article
- A Retrospective Analysis of the Treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy by High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound, Uterine Artery Embolization and Surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2020Article
- The Ethics of Interstitial and Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancies: Four Case Studies and a Review of the Literature.The Linacre quarterly · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ectopic pregnancy that implants within the scar tissue of a previous caesarean scar is a situation that is seldom encountered and is almost invariably incompatible with a successful pregnancy. Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancies are fraught with life threatening complications such as scar rupture, significant haemorrhage, disseminated intravascular coagulation and the need for emergency life saving hysterectomy. The clinical diagnosis can be elusive, particularly in the early stages; therefore clinicians should be familiar with the condition's sonographic hallmarks. Early diagnosis and management is the key to preventing these complications. We describe a case of caesarean scar pregnancy which was initially misdiagnosed as "a spontaneous miscarriage in progress", resulting in uncontrollable bleeding, necessitating an emergency abdominal hysterectomy. We also endeavour to review the literature with regards to the use of ultrasound in its management, treatment and follow up.
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.