ArticleF&S reports2022
Patient attitudes and preferences for the management of pregnancy of unknown location.
Article in F&S reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare experiences and needs of patients with pregnancy of unknown location: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Patients' Experiences With Pregnancy of Unknown Location: A Qualitative Study.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Pregnancy of unknown location: women's attitudes and preferences for its management.F&S reports · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To understand patient attitudes and preferences when faced with the uncertainty of pregnancy of unknown location (PUL). Design: Qualitative, interview-based study. Setting: University Hosptial. Patients: Patients aged >18 years sampled from the emergency department and a subspecialty fertility practice of a university hospital system. Interventions: Six to 8 weeks after resolution of a PUL, with an ultimate clinical outcome of either an intrauterine pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, or ectopic pregnancy. Participants underwent either surgical, medical, or expectant management. Main Outcome Measures: Thematic analysis of the virtual, semistructured interviews (45-60 minutes in length) conducted with participants to identify commonly expressed priorities was performed. Results: Interviews were completed from October 2020 to March 2021 until thematic saturation was achieved (n = 15). Resolution diagnoses included intrauterine pregnancy (26.7%, n = 4), ectopic pregnancy (40.0%, (n = 6), and spontaneous abortion (33.3%, n = 5). Moreover, 66.7% (n = 10) of the patients presented to the emergency department, whereas 33.3% (n = 5) presented to a subspecialty fertility clinic. All had desired pregnancies. Thematic analyses revealed 4 related priorities around PUL management: Conclusions: These data demonstrate novel themes around related priorities in patients with desired pregnancies diagnosed with a PUL previously underappreciated by clinicians. The balance of these priorities evolved throughout management with increasing information and clarity. Continually reevaluating relevant patient priorities and preferences is essential to the comprehensive management of PUL.
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.