ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Non-tubal ectopic pregnancy treatment experiences of a tertiary care center.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ovarian pregnancy: clinical characteristics, diagnostic challenges, and sonographic features-a multicenter case series with narrative literature overview.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Review
- Early ultrasound diagnosis and management of intramural pregnancy: a case series report utilizing the FIGO leiomyoma classification system and 3D sonographic mapping.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Ectopic pregnancy management and treatment strategies: A nationwide survey of Czech gynecological facilities.Women's health (London, England)Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the incidence, the risk factors, and the treatment outcomes of Non-tubal ectopic pregnancies (NTEP) treated in a tertiary care center. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 110 NTEP cases treated between 2014 and 2019 were included in the retrospective study. The study cohort was divided into 6 groups according to the pregnancy localization: 87 cesarean scar pregnancies (CSPs), 7 ovarian pregnancies, 6 interstitial pregnancies, 4 rudimentary horn pregnancies, 4 abdominal pregnancies, and 2 cervical pregnancies. One woman rejected all treatment modalities. Demographic characteristics, treatment modalities, and outcomes of each group were evaluated.
resultsIn the study cohort, expectant management was performed in one (0.9%) woman. The methotrexate (MTX) treatment was administered in 29 (26.3%) women. Seventeen (15.4%) women underwent surgery, and 63 (57.2%) women underwent manual vacuum aspiration (MVA). A woman rejected all treatment modalities. Although 70.1% (n = 61) of CSPs were cured with MVA, 24.1% (n = 21) of them were treated with a single-dose MTX regimen in addition to MVA. The higher mean gestational sac size (33,9 ± 12,96 mm vs. 17,34 ± 9,87 mm), the higher mean gestational week (8,43 ± 1,16w vs. 6,66 ± 1,49w), the presence of fetal heartbeat (FHB) (90.5% vs. 26,2%) and the history of pelvic ınflammatory disease (PID) (38.1% vs. 6,6%) were found in the CSPs with MVA treatment failure (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe management of NTEPs should be individualized according to the clinical and ultrasonographic findings. The size of the ectopic pregnancy mass, the gestational week, the presence of FHB, and the PID history were the predictive factors for the failure of MVA in CSP cases.
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.