Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32174784›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of medical sciences2020

Abdominal wall endometriosis (a narrative review).

Mara Carsote, Dana Cristiana Terzea, Ana Valea, Ancuta-Augustina Gheorghisan-Galateanu

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of medical sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Clinical differences between adipose- and muscle-layer cesarean scar endometriosis: A retrospective observational study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Endometriosis MDC: role of the radiologist.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mara CarsoteDepartment of Endocrinology, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474, Bucharest, Romania; "C.I. Parhon" National Institute of Endocrinology, 011863, Bucharest, Romania.
Dana Cristiana TerzeaDepartment of Pathology, "C.I. Parhon" National Institute of Endocrinology, 011863, Bucharest, Romania.
Ana ValeaDepartment of Endocrinology, "Iuliu Hatieganu" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Ancuta-Augustina Gheorghisan-GalateanuDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Biology and Histology, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474, Bucharest, Romania; "C.I. Parhon" National Institute of Endocrinology, 011863, Bucharest, Romania.
Institutul Național de Endocrinologie C.I. Parhon · ROIuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy · RO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the rarest forms of endometriosis is abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE), which includes caesarean scar endometriosis. AWE remains a challenging condition because some issues related to this topic are still under debate. The increasing number of caesarean sections and laparotomies will expect to increase the rate of AWE. The current incidence in obstetrical and gynaecological procedures is still unknown. The disease is probably underestimated. The pathogenic mechanism involves local environment at the implant site including local inflammation and metalloproteinases activation due to local growth factors, estrogen stimulation through estrogen receptors and potential epigenetic changes. However, the underlying mechanisms are not fully explained, and we need more experimental models to understand them. The clinical presentation is heterogeneous; the patient may be seen by a gynaecologist, an endocrinologist, a general surgeon, an imaging specialist, or even an oncologist. No particular constellation of clinical risk factors has been identified, and the histological report is the major diagnostic tool for confirmation. Surgery is the first line of therapy. Further on we need protocols for multidisciplinary investigations and approaches.

Indexed as

Abdominal WallAdultCesarean SectionCicatrixEndometriosisFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationLaparotomyMagnetic Resonance ImagingObstetricsPregnancyRisk FactorsTomography, X-Ray Computedabdominal wall endometriosiscaesarean scar endometriosisendometriosis

Identifiers

PMID32174784
PMCPMC7053307
OpenAlexW3005563013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.