Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35373546›Full record

ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2022

Fantastic niches and where to find them: the current diagnosis and management of uterine niche.

S Mc Gowan, C Goumalatsou, A Kent

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Isthmocele and Infertility.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S Mc Gowan
C Goumalatsou
A Kent
Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Caesarean section (CS) scar niche is a well recognised complication of caesarean delivery and is defined as an indentation at the site of the CS scar with a depth of at least 2mm. Objectives: To review systematically the medical literature regarding the current diagnosis and management of uterine niche. Materials and Methods: We carried out a systematic review using MeSH terms 'niche' OR 'sacculation' OR 'caesarean scar defect' OR 'caesarean section scar' OR 'uterine defect' OR 'isthmocele.' Articles included were peer-reviewed and in English language. Main Outcome Measures: Prevalence, symptoms, diagnosis, pathophysiology and management of uterine niche. Results: CS scar niche is common and, in a subgroup, produces a range of symptoms including post-menstrual bleeding, dyspareunia and subfertility. It may be linked to use of locked sutures during CS closure. Niche repair can be achieved laparoscopically or hysteroscopically and appears to improve symptoms, although solid conclusions regarding fertility outcomes cannot be drawn. Conclusions: CS scar niche is associated with a range of symptoms. Repair may aid subfertile patients and those with post-menstrual spotting. The presence of a niche is probably irrelevant in the absence of symptoms. What is New?: LNG-IUS and surgical repair appear to improve symptoms in those with a niche.

Identifiers

PMID35373546
PMCPMC9612856
OpenAlexW4226323751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.