Observational studyMedicine2018
Diagnostic accuracy of cystoscopy and ultrasonography in the prenatal diagnosis of abnormally invasive placenta.
Observational study in Medicine, 2018. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoperative cystoscopy as a risk stratification tool for massive hemorrhage in placenta accreta spectrum.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Article
- Perinatal factors for antepartum hemorrhage in women with placenta accreta spectrum.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Potential benefits of routine cystoscopy and vaginoscopy prior to reconstructive surgery in patients with an anorectal malformation.Pediatric surgery international · 2023Article
- Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Placenta Previa with and without Coverage of a Uterine Scar: A Retrospective Cohort Study in a Tertiary Hospital.International journal of women's health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of cystoscopy and ultrasonography for the prenatal diagnosis of abnormally invasive placenta (AIP), including its subgroups: placenta accreta (PA), placenta increta (PI), and placenta percreta (PP).A retrospective observational study including a total of 85 pregnant women at high risk for AIP underwent prenatal cystoscopy and ultrasonography evaluations. The sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and exact diagnosed were calculated and compared for both cystoscopy and ultrasonography. Se and Sp values of cystoscopy and ultrasonography were compared by means of the McNemar test.Of the 85 patients, there were 24 (28.2%) PA, 35 (41.2%) PI, 4 (4.7%) PP, and 22 (25.9%) nonadherent placenta. The mean maternal age and gestational age of delivery were 31.88 ± 4.42 years and 36.14 ± 1.84 weeks, respectively. No one was found to develop any complications with cystoscopy like urinary tract infection, or ureteral injury or perforations. Se in the diagnosis of AIP was 50.8% with ultrasonography and 61.9% for cystoscopy. Sp was 86.4% with cystoscopy and 72.7% for ultrasonography. In subgroups, Se with cystoscopy was 25.0%, 62.9%, and 100.0% in PA, PI, and PP, respectively, and 37.5%, 74.3%, and 100.0%, respectively, for ultrasonography; Sp remained unchanged with 86.4% for cystoscopy and 72.7% for ultrasonography. After McNemar test, no difference was found in either Se or Sp between cystoscopy and ultrasonography in AIP and its subgroups.According to the depth of invasion, the diagnostic value of cystoscopy and ultrasonography is all conspicuous increased and they have similar test validity for prenatal diagnosis of AIP and its subgroups.
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.