Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34605083›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2021

Ultrasound characteristics, serum biochemistry and outcome of ectopic pregnancies presenting during COVID-19 pandemic.

C Kyriacou, N Cooper, E Robinson, N Parker, J Barcroft, S Kundu, P Letchworth, S Sur, D Gould, C Stalder and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

C KyriacouTommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9001-5545
N CooperTommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.
E RobinsonTommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.
N ParkerTommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.
J BarcroftTommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.
S KunduDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK.
P LetchworthSt Mary's Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
S SurTommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.
D GouldSt Mary's Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
C StalderTommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.
T BourneTommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital · GBSt Mary's Hospital · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

Imperial Health Charity RFPrD1920/116NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre IS-BRC-1215-20013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe and compare the characteristics of ectopic pregnancies (EPs) in the year prior to vs during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of women diagnosed with an EP on transvaginal sonography conducted at a center in London, UK, providing early-pregnancy assessment, between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020. Women were identified via the Astraia ultrasound reporting system using coded and non-coded outcomes of EP or pregnancy outside the uterine cavity. Data related to predefined outcomes were collected using Astraia and Cerner electronic reporting systems. Main outcome measures included clinical, ultrasound and biochemical features of EP, in addition to reported complications and management.

resultsThere were 22 683 consultations over the 2-year period. Following consultation, a similar number and proportion of EPs were diagnosed in 2019 (141/12 657 (1%)) and 2020 (134/10 026 (1%)). Both cohorts were comparable in age, ethnicity, weight and method of conception. Gestational age at the first transvaginal sonography scan and at diagnosis were similar, and no difference in location, size or morphology of EP was found between the two cohorts. Serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels at the time of EP diagnosis were higher in 2020 than in 2019 (1005 IU/L vs 665 IU/L; P = 0.03). The proportions of women according to type of final EP management were similar, but the rate of failed first-line management was higher during vs before the pandemic (16% vs 6%; P = 0.01). The rates of blood detected in the pelvis (hemoperitoneum) on ultrasound (23% vs 26%; P = 0.58) and of ruptured EP confirmed surgically (9% vs 3%; P = 0.07) were similar in 2019 vs 2020.

conclusionsNo difference was observed in the location, size, morphology or gestational age at the first ultrasound examination or at diagnosis of EP between women diagnosed before vs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Complication rates and final management strategy were also unchanged. However, hCG levels and the failure rate of first-line conservative management measures were higher during the pandemic. Our findings suggest that women continued to access appropriate care for EP during the COVID-19 pandemic, with no evidence of diagnostic delay or an increase in adverse outcome in our population. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

AdultCOVID-19FemaleHumansLondonPandemicsPregnancyPregnancy, EctopicPregnancy OutcomePrenatal CareRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Ultrasonography, PrenatalCOVID-19early pregnancyectopic pregnancygynecologySARS-CoV-2ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID34605083
PMCPMC8661840
OpenAlexW3204242805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.