剖腹产瘢痕宫外孕治疗研究的结果报告:系统回顾。

IF 4.7 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.17989
Simrit Nijjar, Simarjit Sandhar, Ilan E Timor-Tritsch, Andrea Kaelin Agten, Jin Li, Krystle Y Chong, Munira Oza, Rosanna Acklom, Francesco D'Antonio, Lan N Vuong, Ben Mol, Cecilia Bottomley, Davor Jurkovic
{"title":"剖腹产瘢痕宫外孕治疗研究的结果报告:系统回顾。","authors":"Simrit Nijjar, Simarjit Sandhar, Ilan E Timor-Tritsch, Andrea Kaelin Agten, Jin Li, Krystle Y Chong, Munira Oza, Rosanna Acklom, Francesco D'Antonio, Lan N Vuong, Ben Mol, Cecilia Bottomley, Davor Jurkovic","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17989","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSEP) is associated with significant maternal and foetal morbidity. However, the optimal treatment remains unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to review outcomes reported in studies on CSEP treatment and outcome reporting quality.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>We reviewed 1270 articles identified through searching PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar from 2014 to 2024 using the search terms 'caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy and caesarean scar pregnancy'.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included all study types evaluating any form of CSEP treatment, with a sample size of ≥ 50, where diagnosis was described, and the article was in English.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two authors independently reviewed studies and assessed outcome reporting and methodological quality. The relationship between outcome reporting quality and publication year and journal type was assessed with univariate and bivariate models.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>A total of 108 studies, including 17 941 women, were included. 83% of all studies originated from China. Studies reported on 326 outcomes; blood loss (86%), need for additional intervention (77%) and time for serum hCG to normalise post treatment (69%) were the most common outcomes. A primary outcome was clearly defined in 11 (10%) studies. The median quality of outcome reporting was 3 (IQR 3-4). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality and publication year (p = 0.116) or journal type (p = 0.503).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review demonstrates that there is a wide variation in outcomes reported in studies on CSEP treatment. Development and implementation of a core outcome set by international stakeholders which includes patients is urgently needed to enable high-quality research that is both useful and relevant to patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcome Reporting in Studies Investigating Treatment for Caesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Simrit Nijjar, Simarjit Sandhar, Ilan E Timor-Tritsch, Andrea Kaelin Agten, Jin Li, Krystle Y Chong, Munira Oza, Rosanna Acklom, Francesco D'Antonio, Lan N Vuong, Ben Mol, Cecilia Bottomley, Davor Jurkovic\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1471-0528.17989\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSEP) is associated with significant maternal and foetal morbidity. However, the optimal treatment remains unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to review outcomes reported in studies on CSEP treatment and outcome reporting quality.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>We reviewed 1270 articles identified through searching PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar from 2014 to 2024 using the search terms 'caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy and caesarean scar pregnancy'.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included all study types evaluating any form of CSEP treatment, with a sample size of ≥ 50, where diagnosis was described, and the article was in English.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two authors independently reviewed studies and assessed outcome reporting and methodological quality. The relationship between outcome reporting quality and publication year and journal type was assessed with univariate and bivariate models.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>A total of 108 studies, including 17 941 women, were included. 83% of all studies originated from China. Studies reported on 326 outcomes; blood loss (86%), need for additional intervention (77%) and time for serum hCG to normalise post treatment (69%) were the most common outcomes. A primary outcome was clearly defined in 11 (10%) studies. The median quality of outcome reporting was 3 (IQR 3-4). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality and publication year (p = 0.116) or journal type (p = 0.503).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review demonstrates that there is a wide variation in outcomes reported in studies on CSEP treatment. Development and implementation of a core outcome set by international stakeholders which includes patients is urgently needed to enable high-quality research that is both useful and relevant to patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17989\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17989","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:剖腹产瘢痕异位妊娠(CSEP)与严重的母体和胎儿发病率有关。然而,最佳治疗方法仍然未知:本研究旨在回顾CSEP治疗研究中报告的结果以及结果报告的质量:检索词为 "剖腹产瘢痕异位妊娠和剖腹产瘢痕妊娠",通过检索 PubMed、MEDLINE 和 Google Scholar(2014 年至 2024 年),我们查阅了 1270 篇文章:我们纳入了所有评估任何形式CSEP治疗的研究类型,样本量≥50,其中描述了诊断,文章为英文:两位作者独立审阅研究,评估结果报告和方法质量。采用单变量和双变量模型评估结果报告质量与发表年份和期刊类型之间的关系:主要结果:共纳入 108 项研究,包括 17 941 名女性。83%的研究来自中国。研究报告了 326 项结果;失血(86%)、需要额外干预(77%)和治疗后血清 hCG 恢复正常的时间(69%)是最常见的结果。有 11 项(10%)研究明确定义了主要结果。结果报告质量的中位数为 3(IQR 3-4)。结果报告质量与发表年份(p = 0.116)或期刊类型(p = 0.503)之间没有关系:本综述表明,CSEP 治疗研究中报告的结果差异很大。国际利益相关者急需制定并实施一套包括患者在内的核心结果,以便开展对患者有用且相关的高质量研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Outcome Reporting in Studies Investigating Treatment for Caesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.

Background: Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSEP) is associated with significant maternal and foetal morbidity. However, the optimal treatment remains unknown.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review outcomes reported in studies on CSEP treatment and outcome reporting quality.

Search strategy: We reviewed 1270 articles identified through searching PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar from 2014 to 2024 using the search terms 'caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy and caesarean scar pregnancy'.

Selection criteria: We included all study types evaluating any form of CSEP treatment, with a sample size of ≥ 50, where diagnosis was described, and the article was in English.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently reviewed studies and assessed outcome reporting and methodological quality. The relationship between outcome reporting quality and publication year and journal type was assessed with univariate and bivariate models.

Main results: A total of 108 studies, including 17 941 women, were included. 83% of all studies originated from China. Studies reported on 326 outcomes; blood loss (86%), need for additional intervention (77%) and time for serum hCG to normalise post treatment (69%) were the most common outcomes. A primary outcome was clearly defined in 11 (10%) studies. The median quality of outcome reporting was 3 (IQR 3-4). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality and publication year (p = 0.116) or journal type (p = 0.503).

Conclusions: This review demonstrates that there is a wide variation in outcomes reported in studies on CSEP treatment. Development and implementation of a core outcome set by international stakeholders which includes patients is urgently needed to enable high-quality research that is both useful and relevant to patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
5.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BJOG is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The Journal publishes original, peer-reviewed work in all areas of obstetrics and gynaecology, including contraception, urogynaecology, fertility, oncology and clinical practice. Its aim is to publish the highest quality medical research in women''s health, worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Author Reply. Enhanced Recovery After Gynaecological Surgery: Insights and Future Directions. 'Necessity Is the Mother of Invention'-The Wider Significance of Novel Mid-Urethral Rectus Fascial Sling. Adherence to Healthy Prepregnancy Lifestyle and Risk of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Prospective Cohort Study. Intra- and Postoperative Complications in 4565 vNOTES Hysterectomies: International Registry Cohort Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1