Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38249619›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2024

Clinical Application of a New Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Classification and Evaluation System and a Risk Scoring System.

Peiying Fu, Ling Zhang, Ting Zhou, Shixuan Wang, Ronghua Liu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of general medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Subsequent Obstetric Outcomes: Focus on Postpartum Hemorrhage and Predictive Factors.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peiying Fu *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.
Ling Zhang *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-7811-2585
Ting ZhouDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.
Shixuan WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.
Ronghua LiuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-4197-3971
Tongji Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is an uncommon form of ectopic pregnancy that carries the risk of severe bleeding. To date, there has not been a universally accepted classification and treatment strategy. We performed this study to establish a risk scoring system and new CSP classification system for CSP and evaluate its efficacy. Methods: A total of five groups were generated based on different methods of treatment, and the factors that increase the risk of intraoperative bleeding were examined in our center from 2013 to 2018. The construction of a risk scoring system in this study was based on the use of the chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression analysis. To determine the appropriate cutoff scores, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) were generated. Results: We identified the main high-risk factors for excessive intraoperative hemorrhage during CSP surgery through univariate and multivariate analyses. Within this investigation, the risk factors included gestational sac location and gestational sac diameter. Through analysis, an optimal cutoff score of 3 was determined, and the area under the ROC curve was calculated to be 0.8113 (95% CI=0.7696-0.8531). A score ranging from 0-3 was classified as low risk, while a score ranging from 5-7 was classified as high risk. Additionally, a new classification system for CSP has been established based on sonographic parameters. We also established a diagnostic and treatment process for CSP patients according to the risk scoring method and new CSP classification. Conclusion: We identified the high-risk factors associated with bleeding during CSP surgery and developed a scoring system incorporating these factors. The utilization of this novel CSP typing method, in conjunction with the risk scoring system, can effectively inform doctors in their decision-making process concerning treatment strategies for patients with CSP.

Indexed as

cesarean scar pregnancyclassificationriskscoring systemtreatment

Identifiers

PMID38249619
PMCPMC10799619
OpenAlexW4390893060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.