Guidelines on Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorders
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) is a complex, life-threatening condition that demands a multidisciplinary approach involving obstetrics, maternal-fetal medicine, and various surgical and medical specialties. Effective management relies on multispecialty collaboration and consensus, supported by standardized protocols, to optimize outcomes, guide informed clinical decisions, and mitigate the risks associated with PAS. Objective: To examine clinical practice guidelines for PAS inclusive of high-income countries and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) identifying areas of consensus and gaps in guidance. Evidence Review: A comprehensive search of PubMed, GIN Library, and ECRI Guidelines Trust identified all PAS-related clinical practice guidelines published from January 1, 2014, to January 31, 2024. Additional searches included professional societies' designated websites and cited references. Two independent reviewers screened the guidelines, resolving conflicts through cross-referencing. Initially, 2 independent reviewers provided structured review and feedback to refine, correct, or highlight areas of consensus, disagreement, or insufficient evidence. Any instances of nonagreement were adjudicated by majority panel agreement, arising from a panel of 15 to 18 experts, all authors of PAS guidelines. Agreement scores for each recommendation area (eg, epidemiology, diagnosis, and antenatal management) were categorized as high agreement (≥75%), poor consensus (<50% or ≥30% insufficient evidence), and high levels of insufficient evidence (≥50% of recommendations with insufficient evidence) based on a priori score criteria. Findings: A total of 14 guidelines from 18 articles from national and international societies were included. High agreement was noted in areas such as specialized expertise (100%), antenatal management (88.9%), diagnosis (76.9%), and epidemiology (75.0%). Poor consensus characterized cesarean hysterectomy management (38.5% insufficient evidence and 23.0% disagreement), conservative techniques (33.3% insufficient evidence and 11.1% disagreement), and fertility counseling (30.0% insufficient evidence and 10.0% disagreement). Despite the high risk of anemia, consensus was lacking on iron supplementation strategies. Recommendations for thromboembolism prevention varied, with some guidelines favoring pharmacologic interventions and others advocating for nonpharmacologic measures. Hemorrhage management and postnatal management recommendations, including iron supplementation and thromboembolism prevention, were characterized by high levels of insufficient evidence (55.6% and 57.1%, respectively). Only 1 article (5.6%) specifically addressed LMICs, highlighting substantial underrepresentation. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review of PAS guidelines identified significant discrepancies and insufficient evidence in key aspects of care. The findings underscore the urgent need for further research and quality measures to enhance standardized approaches and improve patient outcomes. The limited availability of recommendations applicable to LMICs highlights the critical need for tailored guidance that accounts for resource constraints and clinical access challenges unique to these settings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,070 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».