ArticleBMC women's health2023
A transvaginal ultrasound-based diagnostic calculator for uterus post-cesarean scar defect.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis comparing different ultrasound detection methods to accurately assess wound healing and scar formation after caesarean section.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of four imaging modalities for cesarean scar defect: a retrospective study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted laparoscopic repair of a symptomatic uterine isthmocele following cesarean delivery: a case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Folding Suture for Cesarean Scar Defect and Its Impact on Pregnancy Outcomes: A Retrospective Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Prevalence of isthmocele according to diagnostic hysteroscopy, transvaginal ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging in non-pregnant women: cross-sectional study.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Isthmocele risk in repeated cesarean: the diagnostic and clinical role of morphometric parameters.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of long-term clinical effect and re-pregnant outcomes between hysteroscopic resection and laparoscopic defect repair in patients with non-severe cesarean scar defect: a retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Diagnostic yield of transvaginal ultrasonography versus saline: infused sonohysterography in the evaluation of post-cesarean section uterine niche.Journal of ultrasound · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA cesarean scar defect (CSD) is incomplete healing of the myometrium at the site of a prior cesarean section (CS), complicating more than half of all cesarean sections. While transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) is the most common modality for diagnosing this defect, hysteroscopy remains the gold standard. We aimed to develop an efficient diagnostic tool for CSD among women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) by integrating TVU findings and participants' demographic features.
methodsA single-center cross-sectional study was conducted on 100 premenopausal and non-pregnant women with a history of CS complaining of AUB without a known systemic or structural etiology. Each participant underwent a hysteroscopy followed by a TVU the next day. The defect dimensions in TVU, patients' age, and the number of previous CSs were integrated into a binary logistic regression model to evaluate their predictive ability for a hysteroscopy-confirmed CSD.
resultsHysteroscopy identified 74 (74%) participants with CSD. The variables age, the number of CSs, defect length, and defect width significantly contributed to the logistic regression model to diagnose CSD with odds ratios of 9.7, 0.7, 2.6, and 1.7, respectively. The developed model exhibited accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 88.00%, 91.89%, and 76.92%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating curve was 0.955 (P-value < 0.001).
conclusionAmong non-pregnant women suspected of CSD due to AUB, looking at age, the number of previous CSs, and TVU-based defect width and length can efficiently rule CSD out.
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.