ArticleCureus2024
Clinic Versus the Operating Room: Determining the Optimal Setting for Dilation and Curettage for Management of First-Trimester Pregnancy Failure.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction There is no clear guidance for the optimal setting for dilation and curettage (D&C) for the management of first-trimester pregnancy failure. Identifying patients at risk of clinically significant blood loss at the time of D&C may inform a provider's decision regarding the setting for the procedure. We aimed to identify risk factors predictive for blood loss of 200mL or greater at the time of D&C. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with first-trimester pregnancy failure at gestational age less than 11 weeks who underwent surgical management with D&C at a single safety net academic institution between 4/2016 and 4/2021. Patient characteristics and procedural outcomes were abstracted. Women with less than 200mL versus greater than or equal to 200mL blood loss were compared using descriptive statistics, chi-square for categorical variables, and Satterthwaite t-tests for continuous variables. Results A total of 350 patients were identified; 233 met inclusion criteria, and 228 had non-missing outcome data. Mean gestational age was 55 days (SD 9.4). Thirty-one percent (n=70) had estimated blood loss (EBL) ≥200mL. Younger patients (mean 28.7 years vs. 30.9, p=0.038), Latina patients (67.1% vs. 51.9%, p=0.006), patients with higher body mass index (BMI, mean 30.6 vs. 27.3 kg/m2, p=0.006), and patients with pregnancies at greater gestational age (59.5 days vs. 53.6 days, p<0.001) were more likely to have EBL ≥200mL. Additionally, patients with pregnancies dated by ultrasound (34.3% vs. 18.4%, p=0.007), those who underwent D&C in the operating room (81.4% vs. 48.7%, p<0.001), and those who underwent general anesthesia (81.4% vs. 44.3%, p<0.001) were more likely to have EBL ≥200mL. Discussion In this study, patients with EBL ≥200mL at the time of D&C differed significantly from those with EBL<200mL. This information can assist providers in planning the best setting for their patients' procedures.
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.