ReviewInsights into imaging2020
Magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis after Cesarean section: a pictorial review.
Review in Insights into imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute and chronic complications of cesarean delivery: An update for the general radiologist.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Early and delayed post-cesarean complications: an imaging review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Endometriosis MR mimickers: T2-hypointense lesions.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- Anterior uterine incarceration complicated by placenta previa and placenta accreta spectrum disorder: a case report.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rate of Cesarean sections (C-sections) in Poland increased from 21.7% in 2001 to 43.85% in 2017 even though the Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians highlights the negative consequences of C-section for both mother and child and recommends to make every possible effort to reduce its percentage, following the World Health Organization recommendations. There is a long list of possible complications related to the uterine scar after C-section, including uterine scar dehiscence, uterine rupture, abdominal and pelvic adhesions, uterine synechiae, ectopic pregnancy, anomalous location of the placenta, placental invasion, and-rarely-vesicouterine or uterocutaneous fistulas. Ultrasound (US) remains the first-line modality; however, its strong operator- and equipment dependence and other limitations require further investigations in some cases. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the second-line tool which is supposed to confirm, correct, or complete the sonographic diagnosis thanks to its higher tissue resolution and bigger field of view. This article will discuss the spectrum of C-section complications in the MR image-rich form and will provide a systematic discussion of the possible pathology that can occur, showing comprehensive anatomical insight into the pelvis after C-section thanks to MRI that facilitates clinical decisions.
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.