ArticleHealth science reports2025
Evaluation of the Outcomes and Complications of Uterine Artery Embolization Using the GELFOAM Technique in Patients With Ectopic Pregnancy Located in the Cervix and Ectopic Pregnancies Resulting From Previous Cesarean Section.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uterine artery embolization with or without methotrexate followed by D&C versus D&C alone for cervical pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Outcomes and Complications of Uterine Artery Embolization Using the GELFOAM Technique in Patients With Ectopic Pregnancy Located in the Cervix and Ectopic Pregnancies Resulting From Previous Cesarean Section.Health science reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: To evaluate outcomes and adverse events of uterine artery embolization (UAE) using the GELFOAM technique for cervical and cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies at a single tertiary center. Methods: We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional case series over 1 year. Maternal age, β-hCG levels, mass size, obstetric history, complications, and treatment success were abstracted from records. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean ± SD for approximately normally distributed variables and median (IQR) for skewed variables. Results: Among 41 patients, uterine preservation was achieved in 40 (97.6%), with no procedure-specific complications and one non-specific postoperative hematoma (2.4%). The single failure occurred in a delayed presentation and required further surgical intervention. For uterine preservation (40/41), the 95% confidence interval for the success proportion is 87.4%-99.6% (Wilson). Conclusion: UAE with GELFOAM appears to be an effective, fertility-preserving option for cervical and cesarean-scar ectopic pregnancy in selected patients. Larger studies with longer follow-up are warranted.
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.