Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34779085›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2022

Definition and sonographic reporting system for Cesarean scar pregnancy in early gestation: modified Delphi method.

I P M Jordans, C Verberkt, R A De Leeuw, C M Bilardo, T Van Den Bosch, T Bourne, H A M Brölmann, M Dueholm, W J K Hehenkamp, N Jastrow and 9 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05672563 (Cesarean Scar Evaluation Using Saline Infusion Sonography in Women With Previous Pregnancy in Scar), which is not on this map. Cited by 53 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
13.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT05672563 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Cesarean Scar Evaluation Using Saline Infusion Sonography in Women With Previous Pregnancy in Scar

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssaf-Harofeh Medical CenterRan2023 to 2023Enrolled40ConditionsUterus, ScarArmsSaline infusion sonography for evaluation of cesarean scar
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Advances in Treating Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Comprehensive Review of Techniques, Clinical Outcomes, and Fertility Preservation.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Placenta Praevia and Placenta Accreta Spectrum: Diagnosis and Management: Green-Top Guideline No. 27a.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  7. Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Subsequent Obstetric Outcomes: Focus on Postpartum Hemorrhage and Predictive Factors.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  8. Diagnosing placenta accreta spectrum.Case reports in women's health · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Prognostic Classification System Based on Machine-Learning and Traditional Linear Scoring Models.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 11 institutions in 7 countries.

I P M JordansDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Research Institute "Amsterdam Reproduction and Development", Amsterdam UMC, location VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3875-7263
C VerberktDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Research Institute "Amsterdam Reproduction and Development", Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R A De LeeuwDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Research Institute "Amsterdam Reproduction and Development", Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C M BilardoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam UMC, location VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1894-0626
T Van Den BoschDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6777-5036
T BourneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
H A M BrölmannDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Research Institute "Amsterdam Reproduction and Development", Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M DueholmDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2577-7903
W J K HehenkampDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Research Institute "Amsterdam Reproduction and Development", Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
N JastrowDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland.
D JurkovicDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University College Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6487-5736
A Kaelin AgtenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3344-0315
R MashiachDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-7198-9229
O NajiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
E PajkrtDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
D TimmermanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
O VikharevaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5356-7009
L F Van Der VoetDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands.
J A F HuirneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Research Institute "Amsterdam Reproduction and Development", Amsterdam UMC, location VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre · GBAarhus University Hospital · DKDeventer Ziekenhuis · NLHôpital Beau-Séjour · CHKU Leuven · BELund University · SENottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBRega Institute for Medical Research · BETel Aviv University · ILUniversity College Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop a standardized sonographic evaluation and reporting system for Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) in the first trimester, for use by both general gynecology and expert clinics.

methodsA modified Delphi procedure was carried out, in which 28 international experts in obstetric and gynecological ultrasonography were invited to participate. Extensive experience in the use of ultrasound to evaluate Cesarean section (CS) scars in early pregnancy and/or publications concerning CSP or niche evaluation was required to participate. Relevant items for the detection and evaluation of CSP were determined based on the results of a literature search. Consensus was predefined as a level of agreement of at least 70% for each item, and a minimum of three Delphi rounds were planned (two online questionnaires and one group meeting).

resultsSixteen experts participated in the Delphi study and four Delphi rounds were performed. In total, 58 items were determined to be relevant. We differentiated between basic measurements to be performed in general practice and advanced measurements for expert centers or for research purposes. The panel also formulated advice on indications for referral to an expert clinic. Consensus was reached for all 58 items on the definition, terminology, relevant items for evaluation and reporting of CSP. It was recommended that the first CS scar evaluation to determine the location of the pregnancy should be performed at 6-7 weeks' gestation using transvaginal ultrasound. The use of magnetic resonance imaging was not considered to add value in the diagnosis of CSP. A CSP was defined as a pregnancy with implantation in, or in close contact with, the niche. The experts agreed that a CSP can occur only when a niche is present and not in relation to a healed CS scar. Relevant sonographic items to record included gestational sac (GS) size, vascularity, location in relation to the uterine vessels, thickness of the residual myometrium and location of the pregnancy in relation to the uterine cavity and serosa. According to its location, a CSP can be classified as: (1) CSP in which the largest part of the GS protrudes towards the uterine cavity; (2) CSP in which the largest part of the GS is embedded in the myometrium but does not cross the serosal contour; and (3) CSP in which the GS is partially located beyond the outer contour of the cervix or uterus. The type of CSP may change with advancing gestation. Future studies are needed to validate this reporting system and the value of the different CSP types.

conclusionConsensus was achieved among experts regarding the sonographic evaluation and reporting of CSP in the first trimester. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

CicatrixPregnancy, EctopicCesarean SectionDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansPregnancyUltrasonographyCesarean scar pregnancycicatrixclassificationDelphi techniquepregnancyultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID34779085
PMCPMC9322566
OpenAlexW3213652906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.