ArticleAJOG global reports2025
New surgical technique for managing placenta accreta spectrum and pilot study of the "CMNT PAS" study.
Article in AJOG global reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uterus-preserving surgery for placenta accreta spectrum: An expert, illustrated review of techniques and its outcomes.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Review
- Article
- Anesthetic and Transfusion Management in Placenta Accreta Spectrum: Lessons From a Resource-Limited Setting and Mini-Review.Journal of medical cases · 2026Article
- Surgical Management of Placenta Accreta Spectrum: A Five-Year Institutional Experience.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The gold standard for treating the placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) is a cesarean hysterectomy, which harms fertility. Another conservative surgical approach allows the uterus to be preserved: one-step conservative surgery. We will compare these two approaches through the "CMNT PAS" study. Before this main study, we conducted a pilot study to determine the required sample size. Study Design: This pilot study, conducted over 31 months, included patients who underwent surgery for suspected PAS based on imaging findings. Participants were divided into the conservative surgery group (CSG: 6 patients) and the Caesarean Hysterectomy Group (control group [CG]: 6 patients). For the CSG, our team adapted the approach described in previous research by Palacios-Jaraquemada. Results: The primary objective of our study is to ascertain the appropriate sample size for our main investigation on the conservative surgical management of PAS. Concerning the primary outcome, the estimated amount of blood loss was lower in CSG compared to CG, although this difference was not statistically significant (1298.04±556 mL vs 891.051±348 mL, Conclusion: The estimated blood loss between the two groups is not statistically significant. The required sample size is 22 patients.
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.