ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Treatment of Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy in China with Uterine Artery Embolization-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Treating Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Comprehensive Review of Techniques, Clinical Outcomes, and Fertility Preservation.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Pooled it
- The Role of Interventional Radiology in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Gynecological Conditions.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Review
- Stepwise minimally invasive management of cesarean scar pregnancy: retrospective clinical and fertility outcomes.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Short- and long-term efficacy evaluation of high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation and uterine artery embolization in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) I and II: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Treatment Outcomes of Excisional Versus Conservative Surgery for Endogenous Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2026Article
- Transcatheter Arterial Embolization (TAE) of Uterine Artery with Gelatin Sponge for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Current State of the Art Review.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in the surgical management of ectopic pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2025Article
- Are the Risk Factors for Developing Type 1 and Type 2 Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Different?Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025Article
- Conservative management of caesarean scar pregnancy: tissue removal device hysteroscopic treatment after uterine artery embolisation.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025Article
- Uterine artery chemoembolization compared with uterine artery embolization combined with prior to hysteroscopy and curettage in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy.African health sciences · 2025Article
- Dilatation and Curettage after Uterine Artery Embolization versus Methotrexate Injection for the Treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Single-Center Experience.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Effectiveness and safety of prophylactic abdominal aortic balloon occlusion for patients with type III caesarean scar pregnancy: a prospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Scar Pregnancy: A Rare, but Challenging, Obstetric Condition.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical efficacy analysis of laparoscopic uterine artery pre-ligation combined with hysteroscopic curettage in the treatment of type II cesarean scar pregnancy.Frontiers in medicine · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSP) is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy, and treatment of CSP with uterine artery embolization (UAE) is a novel approach. With increasing numbers of cesarean sections being performed annually, the incidence of this condition is likely to increase. The authors became aware of an unusually high number of published studies originating in mainland China regarding this unusual treatment and sought to perform a meta-analysis to provide comprehensive evidence on this novel practice.
methodsWe performed a thorough search and included all forms of quality studies on this topic that reported UAE as a part of first-line management of CSP. We included only studies originating in China. Ultimately, 37 studies were included for qualitative and quantitative synthesis of evidence. After screening retrieved records and extracting data from eligible studies, we pooled continuous data as a mean estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous data as proportion and 95% CI.
resultsCSP patients treated with protocols including UAE had a mean time of 30 days for serum β-hCG normalization, 95% CI [26.816, 33.881]. They had a mean estimated intraprocedural blood loss of 4.19 ± 3.76 mL, a mean hospital stay of nine days, 95%CI [7.914, 9.876], and a success rate of 93.4%, 95%CI [0.918, 0.951]. The severe complication rate was 1.2%, 95%CI [0.008, 0.017].
conclusionUAE, in combination with other procedures is being used effectively for the treatment of CSP in China. Protocols including UAE have a success rate of approximately 93.4%, and a severe complication rate of approximately 1.2%. This data's utility is limited by vast differences in the studied protocols and questionable feasibility outside of China.
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.