ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Clinical analysis of women with ovarian pregnancy: a retrospective case-control 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 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Second-trimester ovarian pregnancy mimicking intrauterine pregnancy and causing hemorrhagic shock in surgery: a case report and review of the literature.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Review
- Ovarian pregnancy: clinical characteristics, diagnostic challenges, and sonographic features-a multicenter case series with narrative literature overview.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Review
- Pre-rupture diagnosis and conservative surgery for ovarian ectopic pregnancy hidden by an endometrioma, guided by the transvaginal ultrasound "sliding organ sign": a case report and literature review.BMC women's health · 2026Review
- The diagnosis and management of extrauterine and uterine ectopic pregnancy.Human reproduction update · 2026Review
- Ovarian Ectopic Pregnancy, an Unusual Diagnosis-Two Cases With Two Distinct Treatment Approaches.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo address the clinical features and potential risk factors of ovarian pregnancy (OP).
methodsIn this retrospective case-control study performed in West China Second University Hospital from March 17, 2005 to December 8, 2018, 146 OP patients were selected as a case group, 292 patients with tubal pregnancy (TP) and 292 women with intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) were matched as controls at a ratio of 1:2:2.
resultsWhen compared with TP patients, OP patients tend to have worse clinical complications (hemorrhagic shock (7.41% vs 2.89%), rupture of pregnancy sac (54.07% vs 37.78%), hemoperitoneum (363.1 ± 35.46 ml vs 239.3 ± 27.61 ml) and increased need for emergency laparotomy (9.60% vs 3.97%) at an early gestational age. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) (adjusted OR1 2.08, 95%CI 1.04 to 4.18; adjusted OR2 2.59, 95%CI 1.25 to 5.37) and intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD) use (adjusted OR1 2.19, 95%CI 1.10 to 4.36; adjusted OR2 2.77, 95%CI 1.74 to 5.71) may be risk factors for ovarian ectopic pregnancy as compared to the control groups of TP and IUP patients.
conclusionsOP patients tend to have more severe clinical complications and this study has identified ART and IUD use as potential risk factors for OP. Results of this study may contribute to improve the understanding of OP and promote early surgical intervention.
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.