ArticleCureus2025
Elective Caesarean Delivery in a Patient With May-Hegglin Anomaly: Its Concerns and Review of the Literature.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
May-Hegglin anomaly (MHA) is an autosomal dominant haematological disorder that is commonly misdiagnosed as idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. The presence of leukocyte inclusion bodies differentiates it from other causes of thrombocytopenia. There is a lack of agreement on the perioperative management of patients with MHA. Our patient was a 33-year-old lady with underlying MHA, gravida 2 para 1 at 37 weeks of pregnancy, who was electively admitted for lower-segment caesarean section under general anaesthesia. The caesarean delivery was uneventful, and the mother and baby were discharged without any complications from the operation. In this patient, an intra-abdominal drain was inserted to drain any postoperative intra-abdominal bleeding; however, the drain produced minimal haemoserous drainage, which was similarly observed in her first pregnancy. We performed a systematic search of the literature on MHA and discussed the concerns of the anaesthetic, obstetric, and paediatric teams. We only found 96 pregnancies by 56 mothers with MHA and 51% (n = 49) of these pregnancies were via vaginal delivery and 43.8% (n = 42) were delivered via caesarean sections. About 85.4% (n = 82) of the 96 pregnancies had an uneventful delivery. Only one patient in the postpartum haemorrhage group was considered likely to be attributed to MHA. None of the mothers who received neuraxial anaesthesia in our literature search experienced any epidural-spinal haematoma. There were 103 infants delivered, and 85.4% (n = 88) of them had no associated complications at birth. The rest of the fetal complications were not considered to be associated with MHA. The literature suggests that mothers with MHA generally have an uneventful delivery via all methods.
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.