ArticleGynecologic oncology2021
A possible association between hydatidiform mole and the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2021. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the clinical presentation of tubal ectopic pregnancies: a retrospective cohort study.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
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
objectiveTo confirm an increase in the number of women with molar pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, all patients with complete or partial mole diagnosed at our institution between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2020, were included. To verify whether there was an increase in the incidence of hydatidiform mole (HM) and deliveries in 2020, the incidences for each year from January 2010 to October 2020 were recorded. In addition, we identified all women who were diagnosed with HM from January to October 2020, and compared them with a control group who underwent uterine evacuation for missed abortion of a singleton pregnancy during the same period. We also documented the time taken to diagnose missed abortion or molar pregnancy to check if a delay in diagnosis can explain the increase in HM incidence.
resultsBetween 2016 and 2019, there was a statistically significant increase in the incidence of molar pregnancy. A further increase occurred in 2020 (odds ratio = 2.071). The mean gestational age of the embryo at the time of diagnosis was smaller in the HM group than in the missed abortion group (6.3 ± 1.67-7.4 ± 2.4, one-sided P = 0.034), meaning that it took more time (days) to diagnose molar pregnancy than missed abortion (22.38 ± 10.32 vs. 15.83 ± 7.83 days, P = 0.012).
conclusionThere was a significant increase in the incidence of molar pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly because of the delay in receiving medical care. We recommend providing gynecological primary care services during a crisis, such as a pandemic.
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.