MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399836241 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000001274

Placenta Accreta Spectrum: A Comprehensive Review of Guidelines

2024· review· en· W4399836241 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sonia Giouleka, Ιoannis Tsakiridis, Evangelia-Rafaela Chanioti, Kyriaki Ladas, Anastasios Liberis, Apostolos Mamopoulos, Ioannis Kalogiannidis, Apostolos Athanasiadis, Themistoklis Dagklis

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlacenta accretaHysterectomyObstetricsObstetrics and gynaecologyMaternal morbidityGeneral surgeryGynecologyFamily medicinePregnancyPlacentaSurgeryFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) represents a range of disorders characterized by abnormal placental invasion and is associated with severe maternal morbidity and mortality. Objective: The aim of this study was to review and compare the most recently published major guidelines on the diagnosis and management of this potentially life-threatening obstetric complication. Evidence Acquisition: A descriptive review of guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the International Society for Abnormally Invasive Placenta, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada on PAS disorders was carried out. Results: There is a consensus among the reviewed guidelines regarding the definition and the diagnosis of PAS using specific sonographic signs. In addition, they all agree that the use of magnetic resonance imaging should be limited to the evaluation of the extension to pelvic organs in case of placenta percreta. Moreover, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada agree that screening for PAS disorders should be based on clinical risk factors along with sonographic findings. Regarding management, they all highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary team approach and recommend delivery by elective cesarean section at a tertiary center with experienced staff and appropriate resources. Routine preoperative ureteric stenting and occlusion of pelvic arteries are universally not recommended. Moreover, hysterectomy following the delivery of the fetus, expectant management with placenta left in situ, and conservative management in case of focal disease and desired fertility are all considered as acceptable treatment options. The reviewed guidelines also suggest some measures for intraoperative and postoperative hemorrhage control and recommend prophylactic administration of antibiotics. Methotrexate after expectant management is unanimously discouraged. On the other hand, there is no common pathway with regard to the optimal timing of delivery, the recommended mode of anesthesia, the preferred skin incision, and the effectiveness of the delayed hysterectomy approach. Conclusions: PAS disorders are mainly iatrogenic conditions with a constantly rising incidence and potentially devastating consequences for both the mother and the neonate. Thus, the development of uniform international practice protocols for effective screening, diagnosis, and management seems of paramount importance and will hopefully drive favorable pregnancy outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.372
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.125 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207