ArticleHealth science reports2026
Optimal Treatment Selection for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Using a Predictive Score of Intraoperative Blood Loss: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The significant risk associated with treatment for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is the potential for severe hemorrhage at termination, resulting in controversy over optimal treatment and no international standards. Our previous study proposed that estimating intraoperative blood loss from ultrasound findings, called quantitative risk-scoring (QRS), may help select the optimal treatment. In this study, we analyzed the success rate in selecting the optimal treatment for CSP based on QRS. Methods: A total of 318 CSP cases were included, and the initial treatment, including suction evacuation or uterine artery embolisation (UAE), was selected based on intraoperative blood loss estimates. Failure and intraoperative blood loss were measured. Results: The mean intraoperative blood loss in CSP cases with QRS < 3 who underwent suction evacuation were not statistically different from CSP cases with UAE. In CSP cases with QRS ≥ 3, there were 14 (10%) or 6 (8%) unsuccessful cases with suction evacuation or UAE. The mean intraoperative blood loss after excluding failure was not statistically different between the two groups. Additionally, type 2 CSP cases with QRS ≥ 3 and UAE had lower intraoperative blood loss than those who initially underwent hysteroscopy or laparoscopy, with 5 (8%) cases being unsuccessful. Our study suggested that suction evacuation is safe, with a higher success rate and minimal blood loss for cases with QRS < 3. Similarly, the UAE is safe with minimal blood loss for CSP cases with QRS ≥ 3, although the unsuccessful rate was slightly higher. Conclusions: Our study suggests that QRS can be a tool for selecting initial treatment for CSP in clinical practice.
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.