ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2018
The Ethics of Interstitial and Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancies: Four Case Studies and a Review of the Literature.
Article in The Linacre quarterly, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cesarean section scar pregnancy: Challenges in choosing treatment approach.Clinical case reports · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Catholic bioethicists have extensively addressed extrauterine tubal pregnancies, which represent the great majority of ectopic pregnancies. However, additional management options have been developed for the other 7-10 percent of ectopic pregnancies. Using two cases of interstitial pregnancy and two cases of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) seen at a Catholic tertiary care center, this article discusses options including expectant management, systemic methotrexate, intragestational methotrexate, intragestational potassium chloride, uterine artery embolization, dilation and curettage (D&C), vasopressin use, cornuostomy, cornual wedge resection, CSP evacuation, CSP scar excision, CSP salvage, and hysterectomy. Cornual wedge resection, vasopressin use, and CSP scar excision are morally acceptable; less clearly licit are aspiration of gestational sac contents, cornuostomy, gestational excision for CSPs, and methotrexate. Certainly illicit are any techniques leading to direct abortion such as D&Cs on live embryos or fetuses, double-balloon catheter placement, and use of potassium chloride.
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.