ArticleF&S reports2025
Association between congenital uterine anomalies and placenta accreta spectrum.
Article in F&S reports, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the association between congenital uterine anomalies (CUAs) and placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) in a large, nationally representative sample. Design: Cross-sectional, observational study using the US National Inpatient Sample from 2017 to 2021. Logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate associations between the exposure and the outcome. Predetermined confounding variables included age, history of a cesarean delivery, and placenta previa. A sensitivity analysis was performed including only patients with a code for placenta accreta spectrum who also underwent hysterectomy. Data were weighted according to National Inpatient Sample complex sampling weights to account for year-to-year variation and to extrapolate estimates to the US population. Subjects: Pregnant patients at ≥20 weeks' gestation with International Classification of Disease codes for congenital uterine anomalies or PAS. Exposure: Code for at least 1 of the CUAs. Main Outcome Measures: Code for at least 1 of the types of PAS during delivery hospitalization. Results: The study cohort included 17,594,765 (or 3,518,955 unweighted) individuals. CUAs were present in 78,809 (0.45%, 15,259 unweighted) individuals. PAS was more frequent in patients with CUA than in those without (0.42% vs. 0.12%), with a weighted odds ratio (OR) of 3.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.62-4.32; unweighted OR, 3.37 [95% CI, 2.63-4.31]). When controlling for age, prior cesarean, and placenta previa, the odds of having PAS was higher in those with a CUA than in those without (weighted adjusted OR [aOR], 2.46 [95% CI, 1.87-3.17]; unweighted aOR, 2.44 [95% CI, 1.88-3.16]). In the sensitivity analysis including only individuals with PAS who underwent a hysterectomy, CUA continued to be associated with PAS (weighted aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.52-3.36]; unweighted aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.55-3.31]). Conclusion: In this population-based study, CUAs were associated with an increased odds of PAS. Patients with CUA should have careful screening for PAS at the time of routine obstetric ultrasound.
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.