Guidelines on Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".