Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41309295›Full record

ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026

A Core Outcome Set to Guide Future Research on Caesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: COSCAR Consensus Study.

Simrit Nijjar, Ilan E Timor-Tritsch, Andrea Kaelin Agten, Jin Li, Krystle Y Chong, Munira Oza, Rosanna Acklom, Francesco D'antonio, Lan N Vuong, Ben Mol and 2 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Simrit NijjarFaculty of Population Health Sciences, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8002-0981
Ilan E Timor-TritschIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Andrea Kaelin AgtenLiverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Jin LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Clinical Research Center for Obstetric and Gynecologic Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Krystle Y ChongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Munira OzaThe Ectopic Pregnancy Trust, London, UK.
Rosanna AcklomFaculty of Population Health Sciences, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Francesco D'antonioDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Fetal Care and High-Risk Pregnancy, University Hospital of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.
Lan N VuongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6529-6912
Ben MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8337-550X
Cecilia BottomleyFaculty of Population Health Sciences, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Davor JurkovicFaculty of Population Health Sciences, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop a core outcome set (COS) for research on caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSEP) treatment.

designConsensus development study.

settingInternational. POPULATION: Healthcare professionals, researchers, patient advocates, or individuals with lived experience of CSEP.

methodsThe Delphi process was conducted from July to November 2024 following a systematic review and interviews with individuals with lived experience of CSEP, which identified potential outcomes. This process followed COMET guidance. Outcomes were presented in a two-round online Delphi survey. Round one included 287 healthcare professionals, 50 researchers, and 69 patient advocates and individuals with lived experience from 51 countries. In round two, 281 participants from 43 countries contributed. The final COS was developed at a consensus meeting of the steering committee, comprising all key stakeholders.

results346 outcomes were initially identified, reduced to 62 in round one, then 40 in round two of the Delphi survey. The final COS comprises 19 core outcomes across seven domains: (1) Treatment success in early CSEP; (2) Complications in early treated CSEP; (3) Success of expectantly managed advanced live CSEP; (4) Complications of expectantly managed advanced live CSEP; (5) Mortality and severe morbidity; (6) Future reproductive health; and (7) Patient experience. Additionally, 15 non-mandatory outcomes and four essential reporting items were recommended. Clear definitions were provided for each core outcome.

conclusionThrough international consensus, we have developed a COS that reflects the perspectives of healthcare professionals, researchers, and individuals with lived experience of CSEP. This COS allows for standardised outcome reporting in future research, fostering a new generation of high-quality evidence that can inform clinical guidelines and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionCicatrixOutcome Assessment, Health CarePregnancy, EctopicConsensusDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansPregnancycaesarean scarconsensus development studycore outcome set developmentDelphiectopic pregnancystakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID41309295
PMCPMC12884206

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.