ArticleCurrent medical science2022
Complete Rupture of the Pregnant Uterus: A 10-year Retrospective Descriptive Study.
Article in Current medical science, 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early Challenges: A Case Report of a Premature Baby with Down Syndrome and Uterine Rupture.AJP reports · 2024Article
- Uterine rupture after previous caesarean section with hysterotomy above the lower uterine segment.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe goal of this work is to analyze the incidence, etiology, clinical characteristics, maternal and neonatal outcomes of complete uterine rupture during pregnancy.
methodsThe information of complete uterine rupture between June 2010 and May 2020 was investigated retrospectively at a tertiary center, and included demographic data, delivery characteristics, intraoperative findings, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. The prevalence rate of uterine rupture in the early group (hospitalized from June 2010 to May 2015) and late group (June 2015 to May 2020) was compared and analyzed.
resultsThere were 37 (0.056%) cases of complete uterine rupture in 66 092 births, including 27 (0.041%) of scar uterus and 10 (0.015%) of non-scarred uterus. High-risk factors for scarred uterine rupture included: previous cesarean section (13, 48.1%), myomectomy (8, 29.6%), corneal pregnancy resection (6, 22.2%), history of uterine rupture (1, 3.7%), and uterus perforation during abortion (1, 3.7%). Compared to the early group, the number of uterine ruptures caused by previous cesarean section was significantly reduced in the late group. Of the 10 patients with non-scarred uterine rupture, 3 (30%) occurred during delivery and 7 (70%) were spontaneous. Among the 37 complete rupture patients, 3 (8.1%) died of uterine scar rupture, 19 (51.3%) cases were reported with fetal/newborn deaths, 5 (13.5%) cases underwent hysterectomy and the rest were treated with uterine repair.
conclusionComplete uterine rupture often has catastrophic effect on pregnancy outcomes. Obstetrics doctors should be vigilant to identify the risk factors and clinical presentations of uterine rupture during pregnancy. Strict prenatal management is beneficial to improve pregnancy outcomes.
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.