Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34194390›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2021

A Comparison of Ultrasound Guided Curettage With and Without Uterine Artery Embolization on Controlling Intraoperative Blood Loss for a Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Treatment: Study Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Yunhui Tang, Yi Zhang, Hanqing Tang, Jiahui Che, Hua Feng, Xiaoying Yao, Qi Chen

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Yunhui TangDepartment of Family Planning, The Hospital of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yi ZhangDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Hanqing TangSchool of Medicine, Nantong University, Nantong, China.
Jiahui CheDepartment of Gynaecology, The Hospital of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Hua FengUnit of Cervical Disease, The Hospital of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xiaoying YaoDepartment of Family Planning, The Hospital of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Qi ChenDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University · CNUniversity of Auckland · NZNantong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Cesarean scar pregnancy affects 6% of all ectopic pregnancies in women with prior cesarean section, and there is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment. Options of surgical treatment have a risk of intraoperative blood loss; therefore, uterine artery embolization (UAE) has been considered as an option of reducing intraoperative blood loss. However, UAE may be overused in clinical practice, especially in China. We present this protocol for a randomized clinical trial investigating the necessity of performing UAE for cesarean scar pregnancy, in combination with surgical suction curettage, taking into account the different subtypes of cesarean scar pregnancy. We recently developed a risk-scoring system (QRS) to estimate intraoperative blood loss, with 93.8% sensitivity and 6.3% false negative. Through this randomized clinical trial, we will retrospectively validate the QRS score on predicting intraoperative blood loss. Methods and Analysis: We propose undertaking a randomized clinical trial sequentially recruiting 200 patients. All the patients will randomly receive ultrasound guided curettage with or without UAE. Data on the subtypes of cesarean scar pregnancy (Types 1 and II and III) detected by ultrasound will be collected before operation. The score on estimating intraoperative blood loss assessed by our recently developed quantitative risk-scoring system (QRS) will be collected before the operation. We will primarily compare the duration of the operation, intraoperative blood loss, and complications between the two groups. We will also retrospectively analyze the association of subtypes of cesarean scar pregnancy and the options of treatment and validate the QRS score. Outcomes of subsequent pregnancy within the 2-year follow-up will be secondary outcomes. Trial Registration Number: [website], identifier ChiCTR2100041654.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalCesarean SectionChinaCicatrixCurettageFalse Negative ReactionsFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy, EctopicPregnancy OutcomeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesRiskRisk AssessmentSensitivity and Specificitycesarean scar pregnancyintraoperative blood lossquantitative risk-scoring systemrandomized clinical trialuterine artery embolization

Identifiers

PMID34194390
PMCPMC8237711
OpenAlexW3172851492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.