ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2022
Pathologic examination of the placenta and its benefits in treatment plan or follow-up of patients: a cross-sectional study.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Abnormal Intrapartum Cardiotocographic Tracing, Fetal Outcome and Placental Pathology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Morphological Macroscopical Placental Features of Pregnancies Complicated with Fetal Growth Restriction: a Case-Control Study.Maedica · 2025Article
- The role of heat shock proteins in placental ischemic disease: A narrative review of the current literature.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Review
- 3D multiscale characterization of the human placenta: Bridging anatomy and histology by X-ray phase-contrast tomography.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Placental Histopathological Changes and the Level of Anti-Spike Antibody After Covid-19 Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Case Series.Journal of reproduction & infertilityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe placental examination provides important information about the effect of maternal abnormalities on the placenta or the cause of preterm delivery, fetal growth restriction, or fetal neurodevelopmental damage. In this study, the frequency of placental pathologies of patients in a tertiary hospital was investigated.
methodsIn this longitudinal and cross-sectional study, all removed placentas after any type of pregnancy termination referred to a pathological examination, within 1 year (2019-2020). All placentas were examined macroscopically and microscopically by two pathologists.
resultsUnfortunately, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of pregnant women in our hospital declined. A total of 258 placentas were examined. The type of delivery in 193 cases (79.4%) was cesarean section and 50 cases (20.6%) had a vaginal delivery. In the pathological assessment of placentas, 238 (92.2%) cases were normal and 20 cases (7.8%) were abnormal. Infarct and chorioamnionitis were the pathologies with higher frequencies (4.3% and 2.7%, respectively). Intra-uterine fetal death (p = 0.701), preeclampsia (p = 0.51) had no significant difference was seen in normal and abnormal placentas. Maternal age (p = 0.83), gestational age based on the last menstrual period (p = 0.38), and gestational age based on the first ultrasound (p = 0.78) did not show a significant relationship with any of the pathological complications categories.
conclusionsPathological examination of the placenta from all live-birth deliveries is not worthwhile, and it's recommended to modify the guidelines as to when the placenta is submitted for pathological evaluation.
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.