Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28552996›Full record

ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2017

Recurrent Interstitial Pregnancy: a Review of the Literature.

Eva Egger

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cornual Pregnancy.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapy
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eva EggerUniversity of Bonn, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology/CIO, Bonn, Germany.
University of Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interstitial pregnancies account for 2-4 % of all ectopic pregnancies. Despite its rarity, various treatment options exist. However, no gold standard has yet been defined and data regarding recurrence of interstitial pregnancies in subsequent pregnancies after different treatments are sparse. This makes it very difficult to provide adequate patient counselling for treatment options with regards to the treatment-related risk of recurrence. The present literature review demonstrates that recurrent interstitial pregnancy is a rare condition and more likely when additional anatomy-related risk factors for ectopic pregnancies are present, such as hydrosalpinges, blocked tubes, endometriosis, fibroids or prior tubal ectopic pregnancies. Therefore, at first appearance and in absence of additional anatomy-related risk factors, methotrexate intravenously, intramuscularly or into the amnion may be the first choice. In case of anatomical risk factors, cornual wedge resection seems to be first choice. In case of recurrence, cornual wedge resection is particularly justified in patients with anatomical alterations of the salpinges. The role of conservative surgical treatments in recurrence as cornuotomy, salpingectomy, endoloop ligation and resection and curettage under laparoscopic guidance remains unclear due to sparse data.

Indexed as

angular pregnancycornual pregnancyectopic pregnancyinterstitial pregnancyrecurrent ectopic pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID28552996
PMCPMC5406236
OpenAlexW2609417638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.