Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42763435›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2026

Imaging in gynecological disease (32): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of early abdominal ectopic pregnancy.

L Berg, L V de Braud, E Bean, M Lomheim, L Savelli, D Jurkovic

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 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.

L BergEGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London (UCL), London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6617-3065
L 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
E BeanBarking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0264-2966
M LomheimMandal Spesialistsenter, Mandal, Norway.
L SavelliObstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital, Forlì & University of Bologna School of Medicine, Bologna, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0961-7296
D JurkovicEGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London (UCL), London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6487-5736

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare clinical and sonographic characteristics of first-trimester abdominal ectopic pregnancy (AEP) with those of tubal ectopic pregnancy (TEP), and to define ultrasound-based diagnostic criteria for AEP.

methodsThis was a retrospective case-control study comparing cases of AEP diagnosed at four centers with controls diagnosed with TEP, between May 2008 and May 2025. AEP was defined as a pregnancy implanted within the peritoneal cavity outside the uterus, ovaries and Fallopian tubes. We compared demographics, clinical and ultrasound findings and clinical outcomes between the groups. We identified the key ultrasound features of first-trimester AEP and used these to develop refined diagnostic criteria.

resultsDuring the study period, 19 cases of AEP were identified and compared to 57 controls with TEP. The groups were matched for age, parity and gestational age at presentation. Compared with TEP, AEP was more likely to occur in pregnancies conceived via in-vitro fertilization (6/19 (32%) vs 5/57 (9%); odds ratio (OR) 4.80 (95% CI, 1.27-18.21); P = 0.02; adjusted OR (aOR), 5.02 (95% CI, 1.24-20.25); P = 0.02) and patients with AEP were less likely to present with vaginal bleeding (5/18 (28%) vs 40/57 (70%); OR, 0.16 (95% CI, 0.05-0.53); P = 0.003; aOR, 0.17 (95% CI, 0.05-0.64); P = 0.009). With respect to clinical outcomes, patients with AEP were more likely to have significant blood loss (≥ 500 ml) at surgery (4/16 (25%) vs 1/36 (3%); OR, 11.67 (95% CI, 1.18-114.90); P = 0.04) and require blood transfusion (4/19 (21%) vs 0/56 (0%); P = 0.003). Four diagnostic ultrasound criteria for AEP were identified: (1) the presence of a gestational sac or trophoblast separate from the uterus and ovaries; (2) the absence of a hypoechogenic tissue layer surrounding the pregnancy; (3) a negative 'sliding organs' sign; and (4) trophoblastic blood flow arising from the peritoneum detected on color Doppler examination.

conclusionsAssisted conception is a risk factor for a pregnancy implanting into the peritoneal cavity. Early ultrasound diagnosis of AEP is important to reduce the risk of major intra-abdominal bleeding, which is significantly higher in AEP compared with TEP. © 2026 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Pregnancy, AbdominalPregnancy, TubalUltrasonography, PrenatalAdultCase-Control StudiesFemaleGestational AgeHumansPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstRetrospective Studiesabdominal pregnancyassisted reproductive technologydiagnosisultrasound

Identifiers

PMID42763435
PMCPMC13641725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.