Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37577060›Full record

ReviewReproductive medicine and biology

Prevalence, definition, and etiology of cesarean scar defect and treatment of cesarean scar disorder: A narrative review.

Shunichiro Tsuji, Yuri Nobuta, Tetsuro Hanada, Aike Takebayashi, Ayako Inatomi, Akimasa Takahashi, Tsukuru Amano, Takashi Murakami

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive medicine and biology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
16.2field-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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shunichiro TsujiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Shiga University of Medical Science Otsu Shiga Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3945-6817
Yuri NobutaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Shiga University of Medical Science Otsu Shiga Japan.
Tetsuro HanadaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Shiga University of Medical Science Otsu Shiga Japan.
Aike TakebayashiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Shiga University of Medical Science Otsu Shiga Japan.
Ayako InatomiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Shiga University of Medical Science Otsu Shiga Japan.
Akimasa TakahashiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Shiga University of Medical Science Otsu Shiga Japan.
Tsukuru AmanoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Shiga University of Medical Science Otsu Shiga Japan.
Takashi MurakamiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Shiga University of Medical Science Otsu Shiga Japan.
Shiga University of Medical Science · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cesarean scar defects (CSD) are caused by cesarean sections and cause various symptoms. Although there has been no previous consensus on the name of this condition for a long time, it has been named cesarean scar disorder (CSDi). Methods: This review summarizes the definition, prevalence, and etiology of CSD, as well as the pathophysiology and treatment of CSDi. We focused on surgical therapy and examined the effects and procedures of laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, and transvaginal surgery. Main findings: The definition of CSD was proposed as an anechoic lesion with a depth of at least 2 mm because of the varied prevalence, owing to the lack of consensus. CSD incidence depends on the number of times, procedure, and situation of cesarean sections. Histopathological findings in CSD are fibrosis and adenomyosis, and chronic inflammation in the uterine and pelvic cavities decreases fertility in women with CSDi. Although the surgical procedures are not standardized, laparoscopic, hysteroscopic, and transvaginal surgeries are effective. Conclusion: The cause and pathology of CSDi are becoming clear. However, there is variability in the prevalence and treatment strategies. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct further studies using the same definitions.

Indexed as

cesarean scar defectcesarean scar disordercesarean sectionhysteroscopic surgerysecondary infertility

Identifiers

PMID37577060
PMCPMC10412910
OpenAlexW4385742467

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.