ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Comparison of different treatment strategies in the management of endogenic caesarean scar pregnancy: a multicentre retrospective study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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.
- Clinical and historical features of cesarean scar pregnancies in a tertiary hospital with a high rate of cesarean section: A case-control survey.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Outcomes of prophylactic lauromacrogol injection versus non-injection in patients with endogenous cesarean scar pregnancy treated by hysteroscopic surgery: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different treatment strategies for endogenic caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) patients.
methodsAccording to Vial's standard, we defined endogenic-type CSP as (1) the gestational sac growing towards the uterine cavity and (2) a greater than 0.3 cm thickness of myometrial tissue at the caesarean scar. A total of 447 endogenic CSP patients out of 527 patients from 4 medical centres in China were enrolled in this study. A total of 120 patients were treated with methotrexate (MTX) followed by surgery, 106 received ultrasound-guided curettage directly and 221 received curettage combined with hysteroscopy. The clinical information and clinical outcomes of these patients were reviewed. Successful treatment was defined as (1) no additional treatment needed, (2) no retained mass of conception and (3) serum β subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) level returning to a normal level within 4 weeks. The success rate was analysed based on these factors.
resultAmong 447 patients, no significant difference was observed in baseline characteristics between groups except for foetal heartbeat. The success rate was significantly different (p<0.001) among the three groups. The highest success rate of 95.9% was noted in the hysteroscopy group, and the lowest success rate of 84.0% was noted in the curettage group. In addition, the MTX group reported the longest hospital stay and highest expenses, but the curettage group showed the shortest and lowest expenses, respectively. Nevertheless, no difference in blood loss was observed between the groups.
conclusionThe combination of curettage and hysteroscopy represents the most effective strategy. Pretreatment with MTX did not result in better clinical outcomes. Ultrasound-guided curettage directly should not be considered a first-line treatment choice for endogenic CSP patients.
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.