ArticleJournal of ultrasonography2024
Effects of diabetes mellitus and cervical changes on scar healing after cesarean section.
Article in Journal of ultrasonography, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of diabetes mellitus and cervical dilatation on cesarean section scar healing. Material and methods: This prospective study included pregnant women diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and healthy control pregnant women. The study group was divided into active labor and pre-active labor based on cervical dilatation, and the diabetic group was categorized into gestational diabetes and preexisting diabetes mellitus. Vaginal ultrasound was performed in the entire study group at six months postpartum, and the location of the cesarean scar was evaluated. Results: There were 170 participants in the study; 85 were diabetic, and the remaining 85 were healthy controls. Niche frequency in diabetes mellitus cases was not different from that in healthy controls ( Conclusions: There was no significant difference in niche frequency between diabetic cases and healthy controls. When comparing the gestational diabetes mellitus group and the preexisting diabetes mellitus groups, there was no difference in the presence of niches. Niche presence was more common in diet-regulated diabetic patients compared with the insulin-regulated group. Cervical dilatation at the time of cesarean section did not affect niche presence in diabetic cases.
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.