SynthesisBMC women's health2024
Association of caesarean scar defect with risk of abnormal uterine bleeding: results from meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uterine cesarean scar resection during repeat cesarean delivery to prevent uterine niche formation: a randomized controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Trial
- Article
- Development of the Er-Kay Classification: A Novel Volume-Based Assessment of Cesarean Scar Defects and Their Association with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Hysteroscopic surgery for treating intramural fibroids at the cesarean scar area: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the association between caesarean scar defects and abnormal uterine bleeding through systematic literature review.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were searched based on PRISMA 2020 to include studies exploring abnormal uterine bleeding in women with caesarean scar defects. The combined relative risk (RR) of uterine bleeding, combined prevalence of abnormal uterine bleeding and combined RR of intermenstrual uterine bleeding were calculated using a fixed- or random-effects model.
resultsTen studies involving 1,183 women with caesarean scar defects met the inclusion criteria for this study. Compared with women without caesarean scar defects, those with caesarean scar defects had a higher risk of abnormal uterine bleeding (RR: 3.22, 95% CI: 1.83-5.66) and intermenstrual bleeding (RR: 2.93, 95% CI: 1.91-4.50). The prevalence of abnormal uterine bleeding was approximately 0.46 (95% CI: 0.27-0.64), and across populations, women with a previous caesarean section who had undergone imaging specifically for gynaecological disease had a significantly higher prevalence of abnormal uterine bleeding (0.77, 95% CI: 0.65-0.89) than those with at least one caesarean Sect. (0.25, 95% CI: 0.10-0.39).
conclusionA significant association was observed between caesarean scar defects and abnormal uterine bleeding, with the former being a risk factor for the latter. However, previous studies have differed in the definition of caesarean scar defects and abnormal uterine bleeding, and more high-quality studies are needed to further investigate the relevant definitions and study results in the future.
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.