Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41449819›Full record

ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026

Caesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy in Early Gestation: A Scoping Review of Definitions and Diagnostic Approach.

Simrit Nijjar, Lucrezia V De Braud, Ewelina Rogozińska, Cecilia Bottomley, Davor Jurkovic, Eric Jauniaux

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Simrit NijjarEGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London (UCL), London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8002-0981
Lucrezia V De BraudEGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London (UCL), London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2563-2605
Ewelina RogozińskaThe EVIE Evidence Synthesis Research Group, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Cecilia BottomleyEGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Davor JurkovicEGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Eric JauniauxEGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London (UCL), London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0925-7737

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSEP) is defined by the implantation and development of a gestational sac inside a caesarean scar defect, but variations in classification systems and diagnostic criteria exist.

objectivesThis study aimed to systematically review the different criteria used in the medical literature to diagnose CSEP in the first trimester of pregnancy. SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar from September 1990 to January 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective and retrospective observational studies published in English reporting on imaging criteria used to diagnose CSEP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently reviewed retrieved articles and performed data extraction using a priori-developed data collection form. Findings were tabulated and synthesised in a narrative format. MAIN

resultsA total of 22 studies, involving 1749 CSEP cases, met the inclusion criteria. Diagnostic modalities varied, with eight different classification systems reported across 11 studies, with the remaining 11 studies not specifying a classification system. Histology was used as a reference standard in 59% (13/22), intraoperative features in 18% (4/22) and a combination of both in 23% of studies (5/22). Seventy-two percent of studies (13/18) that used histology as a reference standard did not provide specific histological criteria for diagnosing CSEP.

conclusionsThis review highlights the wide variability in diagnostic approaches, imaging criteria and classification systems used in the first-trimester diagnosis of CSEP. The absence of a universally accepted reference standard for CSEP diagnosis poses a major challenge for prospective studies evaluating diagnostic accuracy.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionCicatrixPregnancy, EctopicFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstUltrasonography, Prenatalcaesarean scar ectopic pregnancyclassificationdefinitiondiagnosismagnetic resonance imagingreference standardultrasound imaging

Identifiers

PMID41449819
PMCPMC12972860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.