ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2020
Selection of a correct treatment protocol in caesarean scar pregnancies.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the clinical efficacy of three surgical methods for cesarean scar pregnancy.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the necessity of laparoscopic repair of a uterine scar defect for cesarean scar pregnancy.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims at assessing the effectiveness of various treatment protocols with the help of some parameters in caesarean scar pregnancies.
methodsA total of 26 patients were assessed in the study. The patients were divided into 4 groups. Group 1 consisted of those who had a wedge resection (n = 7), group 2 those who had a suction curettage (n = 10), group 3 those who had a systemic methotrexate (MTX) (n = 5) and group 4 those who had a systemic + local MTX (n = 4). The ßHcg half-lives, haemoglobin levels at the time of admittance and discharge, and hospital stays of the groups were compared.
resultsThe difference between group 1 and group 4 was found significant (p = 0.002) with respect to days of hospital stay. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to ßHcg half-lives and haemoglobin values.
conclusionThe results of our study showed that there were no significant differences between treatment outcomes when appropriate protocols were employed. Therefore, the important point in CSPs is to assess correctly the type of CSP, the myometrial thickness and the patient's hemodynamic condition and select the most appropriate protocol accordingly rather than trying to establish a single standard treatment protocol.
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.