ArticleBMC medical imaging2024
Diagnostic value and efficacy evaluation value of transvaginal color doppler ultrasound parameters for uterine scar pregnancy and sub-type after cesarean section.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Ultrasound parameters for predicting high bleeding risk and efficacy of uterine artery embolization in gestational sac-type cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective single-center study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- A Possible Role of Clinical Factors in Choosing the Best Treatment Modality in Cesarean Scar Pregnancy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Analyzing Influencing Factors of Uterine Rupture in Pregnant Women with Scarred Uterus Undergoing Repeat Delivery and Evaluating the Predictive Value of Lower Uterine Anterior Wall Thickness.International journal of women's health · 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
objectiveWe aimed to probe the diagnostic value of transvaginal color Doppler ultrasound (TV-CDU) parameters in cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and CSP sub-types, and the relevant factors affecting patients' surgical effects.
methodsSeventy-five CSP patients (all requested termination of pregnancy) were selected as the observation group, and 75 normal pregnant women with a history of cesarean section were selected as the control group. All the study subjects underwent TV-CDU and their cesarean scar muscle (CSM) thickness, minimum sagittal muscle thickness and resistance index (RI) of blood flow in the anterior wall of the lower uterine segment were calculated. The diagnostic value of CSM, minimum sagittal muscle thickness, and RI for CSP and CSP sub-types was analyzed. The patients in the observation group were grouped into the effective group and the ineffective group according to whether the surgical treatment was effective or not, and the independent factors affecting CSP efficacy were analyzed.
resultsThe observation group had lower CSM, minimum sagittal muscle thickness and RI than the control group. CSM, RI, and minimum sagittal thickness in patients with type II CSP were lower than those in patients with type I, and these indicators in patients with type III were lower than those in patients with type II. The area under the curve (AUC) of CSM, RI and minimum sagittal muscle thickness in combination for CSP diagnosis and the AUC for CSP sub-types were higher than those of each indicator alone. Gestational sac size and CSM were independent factors affecting CSP treatment.
conclusionChanges in TV-CDU parameters facilitates CSP diagnosis after cesarean section. CSM, minimum sagittal muscle thickness changes, and RI in combination possesses high value for CSP diagnosis and CSP sub-types. Gestational sac size and CSM are independent factors affecting CSP treatment.
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.