ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
Double-uterine-incision in the management of placenta previa complicated by placenta accreta spectrum.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of placenta previa among deliveries: An update systematic review and meta-analysis after the introduction of the two-child policy in Mainland China.Journal of global health · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Perinatal factors for antepartum hemorrhage in women with placenta accreta spectrum.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical Comparison of Anterior or Posterior Placental Location with Placenta Previa and History of Previous Cesarean Section Delivery.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of a new double-uterine-incision, based on Ar's incision, with single-uterine-incision during cesarean section in pregnancy concurrently complicated by placenta previa and placenta accreta spectrum.
methodsA retrospective cohort study including 260 participants was conducted between January 2014 and June 2019. The participants only underwent Ar's incision in the single-uterine-incision group and participants underwent two uterine incisions in the new double-uterine-incision group. The demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between the two groups.
resultsFifty-six participants (21.5%) underwent a double-incision, and the other 204 underwent a single-incision. The incidence of previous cesarean delivery (91.1% vs. 68.6%) and anterior placenta (76.8% vs. 53.4%) was higher in the double-incision group. The blood loss (3400 ml vs. 1600 ml) and the need for blood transfusion (100.0% vs. 82.8%) were higher in the double-incision group. There was no significant difference between the two groups (one (1.8%) in the double-incision group and 10 (4.9%) in the single-incision group) in need for subtotal hysterectomy. After adjusting for confounding factors, there was no significant difference between the two groups concerning blood loss, blood transfusion, maternal ICU, or length of hospital stay; and the incidence of subtotal hysterectomy was lower in the double-incision group.
conclusionThis new double-uterine-incision, based on Ar's incision, is an effective and valuable procedure for pregnant women with placenta previa complicated by placenta accreta spectrum, especially in women with a serious condition. It is an option for pregnant women concurrently complicated by placenta previa and placenta accreta spectrum who desire future fertility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34956519PMC8661199W4206855621What 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.