ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023
Clinical value of ultrasonic indicators in predicting the outcome of caesarean scar pregnancy after pregnancy termination.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic and clinical value of multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging in cesarean scar pregnancy: a comparative study of sequence combinations.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- A prediction nomogram for residual after negative pressure aspiration for endogenic cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: a retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Predictive nomogram of ultrasound indicators for the termination outcome of caesarean scar pregnancy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the predictive value of ultrasound indicators in early pregnancy for the outcome of caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) after pregnancy termination.
methodsThis study retrospectively analysed the ultrasound images of 98 CSP patients who underwent transabdominal ultrasound-guided hysteroscopic curettage during early pregnancy at Changsha Hospital for Maternal and Child Health Care between January 2017 and October 2021. Patients were equally divided into a case group and a control group. The case group included 49 CSP patients with postoperative complications, such as intraoperative blood loss ≥ 200 ml or retained products of conception (RPOC). The remaining 49 CSP patients, with similar age and gestational age and with good postoperative outcomes, such as intraoperative blood loss ≤ 50 ml and no RPOC, were included in the control group. CSP was classified into three types according to the location of the gestational sac (GS) relative to the uterine cavity line (UCL) and serosal contour. Differences in ultrasound indicators between the case and control group were compared.
resultsThere were significant differences between the case and control groups in the mean gestational sac diameter (MGSD), residual myometrium thickness (RMT) between the GS and the bladder, blood flow around the GS at the site of the previous caesarean incision, and types of CSP (P < 0.05). The r
conclusionOur findings show that the RMT, blood flow around the GS at the site of the previous caesarean incision, and types of CSP have a low correlation with postoperative complications, such as intraoperative blood loss ≥ 200 ml or RPOC, of early pregnancy termination in patients with CSP. To some extent, this study may be helpful for clinical prognostic prediction of patients with CSP and formulation of treatment strategies. Given the low correlation between these three indicators and postoperative complications, further studies are needed to identify indicators that can better reflect the postoperative outcomes of CSP patients.
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.