Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33959686›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2021

Potential risk factors for caesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective case-control study.

B Gull, V Klerelid, A Jormeus, A Strandell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Are the Risk Factors for Developing Type 1 and Type 2 Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Different?Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Isthmocele and Infertility.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

B GullDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9970-8396
V KlerelidDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.
A JormeusDepartment of Gynecology, Närhälsan Kungshöjd, Gothenburg, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.
A StrandellDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1647-5388
Sahlgrenska University Hospital · SERegion Västra Götaland · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat are the important risk factors for having a caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Independent risk factors were smoking in the first trimester, higher parity, and previous caesarean section (CS) before the index caesarean delivery. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A spectrum of risk factors for CSP has been suggested but not proven: parity, number of previous caesarean section, elective as opposed to emergency CS, IVF-pregnancy, breech presentation, previous gynaecological surgery as well as suture technique. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This retrospective case-control study included 31 women with a CSP during the period 2003-2018 treated at a tertiary care centre for gynaecology and reproduction. A control cohort of 8300 women with a history of a CS and a subsequent delivery during the same time period was formed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsVariables describing demography, lifestyle factors, and reproductive and obstetric history were retrieved from medical records and the obstetric hospital database. Logistic regression analyses were applied to identify potential risk factors. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In a multivariable analysis, smoking in first trimester (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.03, 95% CI 1.01-9.07), higher parity (adjusted OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03-1.64) and previous CS in addition to the preceding CS (adjusted OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.35-8.66) were independently predictive of a CSP. An elective CS at the index pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of CSP but did not remain significant in the multivariable analysis. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: CSP is a very rare phenomenon and several of the risk factor estimates are imprecise. Nevertheless, significant risk factors could be identified. Another limitation is the lack of electronically recorded details on suture techniques. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThe identified factors, namely higher parity and previous CS before the index caesarean section, are in accordance with previously suggested risk factors. Whether there is a true risk association between elective CS and future CSP needs to be investigated further. Smoking in the first trimester is a new finding, which has a plausible rationale. These factors should be recognised when counselling women after a caesarean delivery, particularly in a subsequent pregnancy with early complications. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by a grant from the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils the ALF-agreement (ALFGBG-720291). None of the authors has any conflict of interest to declare.

Indexed as

Caesarean scar pregnancycaesarean sectioncase-control studyectopic pregnancyepidemiologyparityrisk factorsmoking

Identifiers

PMID33959686
PMCPMC8087894
OpenAlexW3157919985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.