ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
The degree of risk factor and accumulation effect for large niche in individuals after cesarean section.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. 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.
- Examining the relationship between cesarean section scar and endometrial cancer.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Article
- Determinants of First-Trimester Residual Myometrial Thickness After Previous Cesarean Delivery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Incidence of Uterine Cesarean Scar Niche After Cesarean Delivery and Assessment of Its Risk Factors.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe risk factors associated with niche on the cesarean scar have been reported, however, the degree of these factors associated with large niche and the accumulation effects of these risk factors on the development of large niche are unclear.
methodsLarge niche was evaluated by transvaginal sonography during mid-follicular phase. Logistic regression model was used to assess 32 risk factors by univariate analysis. Then, a scoring model based on the screened risk factors was generated. The performance of this model was evaluated by area under curve (AUC). Finally, the scoring model was applied in 123 women to assess the external validation. RESULT(S): In the training cohort study, 163 women were diagnosed with large niche. The final scoring model involves eight risk factors with the rating scores including age at delivery (30-34 years: 1 point; ≥ 35 years: 4.5 points), retroflexed uterus (8.5 points), meconium-stained amniotic fluid (4.5 points), twice CSs (4.0 points), postpartum endometritis (4.5 points), premature rupture of membranes (2.5 points), intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (mild to moderate: 3 points; severe: 6.5 points), and cervical dilatation (1-3 cm: 2.0 points; 4-10 cm: 4.5 points). The accumulation effect with a cut-off value of 8.0 in the scoring was associated with the large niche after CS. CONCLUSION(S): This is the first scoring model to objectively quantify the risk of a large niche after CS. Optimal risk factors control by avoiding high score factors and multiple factors accumulation may eliminate the risk of large niche development.
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.