ArticleEmergency radiology2025
Risk factors for misdiagnosis of interstitial ectopic pregnancy.
Article in Emergency radiology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify factors contributing to misdiagnosis of interstitial ectopic pregnancy (IEP).
methodsRetrospective chart review identified patients who presented to Boston Medical Center with suspected and/or true IEP from January 1, 2012 to April 30, 2019. Final diagnoses identified two IEP diagnosis groups: correct initial diagnosis and incorrect initial diagnosis. Data collected included age, gravidity, parity, body mass index (BMI), estimated gestational age, anatomic anomalies of the reproductive tract, smoking status, and history of pelvic surgery, sexually transmitted infections, pelvic inflammatory disease, or adnexal lesions. Continuous variables were analyzed using analysis of covariance and unpaired t-tests. Fisher's exact tests were used for discrete variables.
resultsOf 53 patients with suspected and/or true IEP, 15 (28%) were correctly diagnosed at initial presentation while 38 (72%) were initially incorrectly diagnosed. Patient age was significantly associated with diagnostic group (p = 0.04). Patients in the correctly diagnosed group (Mean ± SD = 35.1 ± 4.2) were significantly older than those incorrectly diagnosed (Mean ± SD = 30.4 ± 4.2) when controlled for gravidity. In univariate analysis, gravidity was associated with diagnostic group, but this association was not significant when controlled for age. Parity demonstrated a similar trend as gravidity but also did not reach significance. Other variables analyzed were not significantly associated with accuracy of initial diagnosis.
conclusionYounger women are more likely to have an incorrect initial diagnosis of IEP at presentation to care. Anecdotally, higher tolerance of invasive imaging procedures by older patients with reproductive experience may result in increased accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound examination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41053464What 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.