ArticleBMC women's health2023
Comparing the clinical efficacy of three surgical methods for cesarean scar pregnancy.
Article in BMC women's health, 2023. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: A Retrospective Study of Ultrasound-Guided Suction Evacuation From Saudi Arabia.Cureus · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Focused Ultrasound Ablation Combined with Curettage and Transvaginal Repair in the Management of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Retrospective Comparative Study.International journal of women's health · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of three surgical methods in the treatment of various types of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
methodsHerein, 314 cases of CSP were treated in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University between June 2017 and June 2020. The patients were divided into three groups based on the treatment received: group A (n = 146; curettage by pituitrin combined with ultrasonic monitoring and hysteroscopy-guided surgery), group B [n = 90; curettage after methotrexate (MTX) injection into the local gestational sac], and group C (n = 78; laparoscopic, transvaginal, and transabdominal cesarean scar resection). These groups were divided into three subgroups (type I, type II, and type III) according to the CSP type of the patients.
resultsThe intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, hospitalization cost, menstrual recovery time, and serum β-HCG normalization time were lower in groups A than in groups B or C with type I, II and III CSP (P < 0.05). Operative efficiency and Successful second pregnancy rate were higher in groups A than in groups B or C with type I and II CSP (P < 0.05). But in type III CSP, the complications were more serious in group A than group C.
conclusionsCurettage by pituitrin combined with ultrasonic monitoring and hysteroscopy-guided surgery is an effective and relatively safe treatment for patients with type I and II CSP. Laparoscopic surgery is more suitable for type III CSP.
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.