Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36988956›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Definition and Criteria for Diagnosing Cesarean Scar Disorder.

Saskia J M Klein Meuleman, Ally Murji, Thierry van den Bosch, Oliver Donnez, Grigoris Grimbizis, Ertan Saridogan, Frederick Chantraine, Tom Bourne, Dirk Timmerman, Judith A F Huirne and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
23.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Determinants of residual myometrial thickness after cesarean delivery: Comparative analysis of barbed versus conventional sutures-A sub-analysis from the SPIRAL trial.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Saskia J M Klein MeulemanAmsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ally MurjiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Thierry van den BoschDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Oliver DonnezComplex Endometriosis Center. Polyclinique Urbain V, (Elsan Group), Avignon, France.
Grigoris Grimbizis1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
Ertan SaridoganReproductive Medicine Unit, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Wing Institute for Women's Health, University College Hospital, NW1 2BU London, United Kingdom.
Frederick ChantraineDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hopital Citadelle, CHU Liege, Liege, Belgium.
Tom BourneDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Dirk TimmermanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Judith A F HuirneAmsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Robert A de LeeuwAmsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
CSDi Study Group
KU Leuven · BEVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLAristotle University of Thessaloniki · GRMount Sinai Hospital · CASaint-Gobain (France) · FRUniversity of Liège · BEImperial College London · GBUniversity College Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Approximately 60% of women develop a uterine niche after a cesarean delivery (CD). A niche is associated with various gynecological symptoms including abnormal uterine bleeding, pain, and infertility, but there is little consensus in the literature on the distinction between the sonographic finding of a niche and the constellation of associated symptoms. Objective: To achieve consensus on defining the clinical condition that constitutes a symptomatic uterine niche and agree upon diagnostic criteria and uniform nomenclature for this condition. Design, Setting, and Participants: A consensus based modified electronic Delphi (eDelphi) study, with a predefined Rate of Agreement (RoA) of 70% or higher. Experts were selected according to their expertise with niche-related consultations, publications, and participation in expert groups and received online questionnaires between November 2021 and May 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Definition, nomenclature, symptoms, conditions to exclude, and diagnostic criteria of an illness caused by a symptomatic uterine niche. Results: In total, 31 of the 60 invited experts (51.7%) participated, of whom the majority worked in university-affiliated hospitals (28 of 31 [90.3%]), specialized in benign gynecology (20 of 31 [64.5%]), and worked in Europe (24 of 31 [77.4%]). Three rounds were required to achieve consensus on all items. All participants underlined the relevance of a new term for a condition caused by a symptomatic niche and its differentiation from a sonographic finding only. Experts agreed to name this condition cesarean scar disorder, defined as a uterine niche in combination with at least 1 primary or 2 secondary symptoms (RoA, 77.8%). Defined primary symptoms were postmenstrual spotting, pain during uterine bleeding, technical issues with catheter insertion during embryo transfer, and secondary unexplained infertility combined with intrauterine fluid. Secondary symptoms were dyspareunia, abnormal vaginal discharge, chronic pelvic pain, avoiding sexual intercourse, odor associated with abnormal blood loss, secondary unexplained infertility, secondary infertility despite assisted reproductive technology, negative self-image, and discomfort during participation in leisure activities. Consensus was also achieved on certain criteria that should be met and conditions that should be excluded before making the diagnosis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this modified Delphi study, a panel of 31 international niche experts reached consensus for the constellation of symptoms secondary to a uterine niche and named it cesarean scar disorder.

Indexed as

CicatrixInfertilityFemaleHumansPelvic PainPregnancyUterine HemorrhageUterus

Identifiers

PMID36988956
PMCPMC10061236
OpenAlexW4361289069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.