ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2020
Uterine rupture in patients with a history of multiple curettages: Two case reports.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 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.
- Lived experiences of women with uterine rupture who were managed at Nekemte specialized hospital: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUterine rupture is a serious obstetric emergency, a severe event, and a serious threat to maternal and fetal life. It is a rare and not well characterized by the fact that multiple operations of uterine cavities contribute to uterine rupture during pregnancy. Atypical uterine rupture is easily misdiagnosed as other obstetric or surgical diseases. In current guidelines, abdominocentesis is a contraindication for late pregnancy. Therefore, the cases presented in this report provide new ideas for clinical diagnosis and treatment of uterine rupture. CASE SUMMARY: Case 1, a 34-year-old woman (gravida 5, para 2), 32 wk and 4 d of gestation, presented with acute upper abdominal pain for 8 h with nausea and vomiting. Computed tomography (CT) revealed pelvic and abdominal effusion. We extracted 3 mL unclotted blood from her abdominal cavity. An emergency caesarean section was performed. A uterine rupture was found, and the fimbrial portion of the left fallopian tube was completely adhered to the rupture. The prognosis of both the mother and the infant was good. Case 2, a 39-year-old woman (gravida 10, para 1) at 34 wk and 3 d of gestation complained of persistent lower abdominal pain for half a day. Her vital signs were normal. CT revealed a high probability of pelvic and abdominal hemoperitoneum. We extracted 4 mL dark red blood without coagulation. An emergency laparotomy was performed. Uterine rupture was identified during the operation. Postoperative course in both the mother and infant was uneventful.
conclusionFor pregnant women in the second or the third trimester with persistent abdominal pain, abdominal effusion, fetal distress and even fetal death, the possibility of uterine rupture should be highly suspected. CT can identify acute abdominal surgical or gynecological and obstetric diseases. Abdominocentesis is helpful for diagnosing and clarifying the nature of effusion, but its clinical value need to be confirmed by further clinical studies.
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.