MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407202669 · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000005824

Risk of Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorder After Prior Non–Cesarean Delivery Uterine Surgery

2025· review· en· W4407202669 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ru Yang, Lizi Zhang, Lu Sun, Jianli Wu, Shilei Bi, Miao Hu, Shijun Luo, Fang He, Jingsi Chen, Lin Yu, Qiying Zhu, Dunjin Chen, Lili Du

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlacenta accretaUterine artery embolizationOdds ratioObstetricsUterine arteryPregnancyCurettageHysteroscopyUterine ruptureGynecologyHysterectomySurgeryUterusPlacentaGestationFetusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between previous non-cesarean uterine surgery and placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) in subsequent pregnancies. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov , CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), and Wan-fang Database were searched from inception to April 2024, supplemented by manual searches. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Studies included prospective, retrospective cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies involving pregnant women diagnosed with PAS and reporting at least one risk factor associated with previous uterine surgery. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Two authors independently screened potentially eligible studies and extracted data. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The pooled odds ratios (ORs), adjusted ORs, and their 95% CIs were estimated with fixed- or random-effects models if the heterogeneity ( I2 ) was high. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for potential study bias. The main measures were myomectomy, uterine artery embolization, dilatation and curettage, hysteroscopic adhesiolysis, abortion, endometrial ablation, and operative hysteroscopy. A total of 38 studies involving 7,353,177 participants were included in the systematic review, with an overall prevalence of PAS of 0.16%, and 31 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Prior non-cesarean uterine surgeries were associated with PAS in subsequent pregnancy (pooled OR 2.29, 95% CI, 1.43-3.68). Distinct associations between specific uterine surgery and PAS included myomectomy (OR 2.29, 95% CI, 1.77-2.97), uterine artery embolization (OR 43.16, 95% CI, 20.50-90.88), dilatation and curettage (OR 2.28, 95% CI, 1.78-2.93), hysteroscopic adhesiolysis (OR 7.72, 95% CI, 4.10-14.53), abortion (OR 1.65, 95% CI, 1.43-1.92), endometrial ablation (OR 20.26, 95% CI, 17.15-23.93), and operative hysteroscopy (OR 3.10, 95% CI, 1.86-5.18). CONCLUSION: Prior non-cesarean uterine surgery is associated with a significantly increased odds for development of PAS in subsequent pregnancy, and the risk varies depending on the types of uterine surgery. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42024552210.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.009
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207