ReviewCureus2026
Cesarean Scar Defect (Isthmocele) and Secondary Infertility: A Systematic Review of Reproductive Significance.
Review in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cesarean scar defect (CSD), also termed isthmocele or uterine niche, is an indentation or pouch-like defect in the myometrium at the site of a previous cesarean scar and may be associated with secondary infertility and adverse reproductive outcomes. This systematic review evaluated the reproductive significance of CSD across diagnostic, assisted-reproduction, surgical, and mechanistic evidence. PubMed/MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) and Scopus were searched from database inception through the final search date, supplemented by Google Scholar, PubMed Central, publisher webpages, DOI records, citation tracking, and manual reference-list screening. Original human studies examining the reproductive significance of CSD were eligible. Substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis; therefore, the findings were synthesized narratively. A total of 36 studies were included. Across the evidence base, the reproductive significance of CSD appeared greater when the defect was accompanied by adverse anatomical or functional features rather than by niche presence alone. These features included thin residual myometrium, intrauterine or intracavitary fluid, chronic endometrial inflammation, and altered uterine contractility. Some assisted reproductive technology (ART) cohorts reported lower implantation, clinical pregnancy, or live-birth outcomes among women with uterine niches. Surgical studies reported anatomical improvement and subsequent pregnancies or live births in selected patients. However, findings varied across patient populations, treatment approaches, and outcome definitions. CSD may be associated with secondary infertility and adverse reproductive outcomes, particularly when accompanied by adverse anatomical or functional features. The available evidence remains observational and heterogeneous, which limits causal inference and direct comparisons between treatment approaches. No single surgical approach was shown to be superior, and treatment selection should remain individualized and anatomy-guided. Future studies should use standardized CSD definitions and clearly defined fertility 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.