ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2022
Evaluation of the necessity of laparoscopic repair of a uterine scar defect for cesarean scar pregnancy.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2022. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of multimodal vaginal ultrasound in the detection and assessment of scar healing after caesarean section: a correlational meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- A scoring system predicts the adverse outcomes for cesarean scar pregnancy treated with transvaginal hysterotomy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Pregnancy outcomes and recurrence following surgical treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic Fluorescence Guided Detection of Uterine Niche-The Next Step in Surgical Diagnosis and Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to determine the risk factors associated with the necessity of laparoscopic scar defect repair for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 237 patients with CSP who were treated by ultrasound-guided suction curettage and/or laparoscopy in our hospital from April 2012 to November 2019. A total of 199 of these patients underwent ultrasound-guided suction curettage without uterine scar defect repair, while 38 of these patients underwent laparoscopic resection and uterine scar defect repair. We analyzed various clinical variables and compared the efficacy of treatment between the two groups.
resultsGestational age, the maximum transverse diameter (MTD) of the gestational sac, myometrial thickness, the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and the duration of the hospital stay were significantly different between the two groups. Gestational age, the MTD of the gestational sac, and myometrial thickness were independent risk factors for laparoscopic repair.
conclusionsGestational age, the MTD of the gestational sac, and myometrial thickness are important factors associated with the necessity for laparoscopic repair of a uterine scar defect.
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.