ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2024
Ultrasound evaluation of scar thickness for prediction of uterine dehiscence in term women with previous caesarean sections.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the role of ultrasound in evaluation of scar thickness for prediction of uterine dehiscence. Method: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in the Radiology department of Aga Khan University Hospital from 1st July to 31st December 2021 after approval from the University Ethic Committee. In this study pregnant women 18 to 40 years with a live singleton fetus with vertex presentation, at term, with history of prior caesarean section and availability of medical record were included. Using a curvilinear ultrasound transducer with optimally distended urinary bladder, the myometrial thickness was measured in the sagittal plane. The intraoperative visual findings of the lower uterine segment outcome at the time of C-section were recorded and categorized into two groups i.e., with and without dehiscence for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 126 women were included. The mean age of the study participants was 29.8±4.1. The median gestational age was 35 (34-37) weeks. The highest AUC 0.58 was recorded for the scar thickness of ≤2.5mm with a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 80.9%, 36.4%, 36.3% and 80.8% respectively. Similarly, the AUC for the scar thickness of ≤2mm was 0.55 with a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 93%, 18.2%, 18.2% and 93% respectively. Conclusion: Transabdominal Sonography is a safe technique to determine the LUS thickness during antenatal ultrasound at term. A cutoff value of ≤2mm showed a high sensitivity and negative predictive value of 93% for evaluating the risk of uterine dehiscence.
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.