ArticleAfrican health sciences2025
Uterine artery chemoembolization compared with uterine artery embolization combined with prior to hysteroscopy and curettage in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy.
Article in African health sciences, 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
Background: To compare evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety efficacy of uterine artery chemoembolization (UACE) and versus uterine artery embolization (UAE) prior to combined with hysteroscopy and curettage in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Methodsology: A total The clinical data of 84 patients with CSP who underwent UACE or U AE combined with hysteroscopy and-guied uterine curettage were enrolled in the retrospective cohort study from August 2016 to April 2021 were retrospectively collected. They were divided into UACE group (n = 39) and UAE group (n = 45) according to different surgical methods. The clinical characteristics general data, operat treatment success rate, ion, postoperative outcome conditions, and re-pregnancy productive outcomes of the two groups were observed and compared and analyzed between the two groups. Results: The overall success rate of 84 patients was 96.43%, the complication rate was 19.05%, and the serious complication rate was 1.19%. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the success rate of operation, complication rate, serious complication rate, UAE operativeon time, hysteroscopic operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, duration of postoperative hospital stay, β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) reduction decrease on postoperative day 1, and re-pregnancy productive outcome (P > 0.05). The time of menstruation recoveryto resumption of menses was shorter in the UACE group than in the UAE group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: UACE was as effective and safe as UAE in the treatment of CSPor UAE combined with hysteroscopy is safe and effective in the treatment of CSP, and the time of menstruation recovery was shorter. UACE reduced the time to resumption of menses compared with UAE, with a similar both of which had similar re-pregnancy productive outcomes.
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.