Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38819580›Full record

SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025

Differentiating placenta accreta spectrum from scar dehiscence with underlying, non-adherent placenta: A systematic review of scoring systems and primary data analysis.

Theophilus K Adu-Bredu, Rozi Aditya Aryananda, Joseph Arkorful, Sam Matthewlynn, Sally L Collins

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Exploring pathophysiological insights to improve diagnostic utility of ultrasound markers for distinguishing placenta accreta spectrum from uterine-scar dehiscence.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
    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.

Theophilus K Adu-BreduNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2365-6769
Rozi Aditya AryanandaObstetrics and Gynecology Department, Maternal Fetal Medicine, Dr Soetomo Academic General Hospital, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0001-6674-7682
Joseph ArkorfulDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.
Sam MatthewlynnNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sally L CollinsNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAccurate discrimination between placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) and scar dehiscence with underlying non-adherent placenta is challenging both on prenatal ultrasound and intraoperatively. This can lead to overdiagnosis of PAS and unnecessarily aggressive management of scar dehiscence which increases the risk of morbidity. Several scoring systems have been published which combine clinical and ultrasound information to help diagnose PAS in women at high risk. This research aims to provide insights into the reliability and utility of existing accreta scoring systems in differentiating these two closely related but different conditions to contribute to improved clinical decision making and patient outcomes. MATERIAL AND

methodsA literature search was performed in four electronic databases. The references of relevant articles were also assessed. The articles were then evaluated according to the predefined inclusion criteria. Primary data for testing each scoring system were obtained retrospectively from two hospitals with specialized PAS services. Each scoring system was used to evaluate the predicted outcome of each case.

resultsThe literature review yielded 15 articles. Of these, eight did not have a clearly described diagnostic criteria for accreta, hence were excluded. Of the remaining seven studies, one was excluded due to unorthodox diagnostic criteria and two were excluded as they differed from the other systems hindering comparison. Four scoring systems were therefore tested with the primary data. All the scoring systems demonstrated higher scores for high-grade PAS compared to scar dehiscence (p < 0.001) with an excellent Area Under the receiver operator characteristic Curve ranging from 0.82 (95% CI 0.71-0.92) to 0.87 (95% CI 0.79-0.96) in differentiating between these two conditions. However, no statistically significant differences were noted between the low-grade PAS and scar dehiscence on all scoring systems.

conclusionsMost published scoring systems have no clearly defined diagnostic criteria. Scoring systems can differentiate between scar dehiscence with underlying non-adherent placenta from high-grade PAS with excellent diagnostic accuracy, but not for low-grade PAS. Hence, relying solely on these scoring systems may lead to errors in estimating the risk or extent of the condition which hinders preoperative planning.

Indexed as

CicatrixPlacenta AccretaSurgical Wound DehiscenceCesarean SectionDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansPregnancyUltrasonography, Prenatalbladder injurycesarean hysterectomymorbidly adherent placentaPAS disordersplacenta accretaplacenta previascoring system

Identifiers

PMID38819580
PMCPMC12087408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.