Suppr超能文献

[两种宫腔粘连评分标准在临床诊断应用中的对比分析]

[Comparative analysis of clinical diagnosis application of two intrauterine adhesion scoring criteria].

作者信息

Peng Y Z, Wang S, Gan L, Liu Y S, Duan H

机构信息

Gynecological Minimally Invasive Center, Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Beijing 100006, China.

出版信息

Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2023 Mar 25;58(3):185-190. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20221207-00743.

Abstract

To explore the similarities and differences of China Society of Gynecology Endoscopy (CSGE) and American Fertility Society (AFS) intrauterine adhesion (IUA) scoring criteria on IUA grading and their predictive value of reproductive prognosis. From January 2016 to January 2019, a total of 1 249 patients were diagnosed with IUA by hysteroscopy at Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital. Totally, 378 patients with complete clinical data were enrolled, and the results diagnosed by CSGT and AFS scoring criteria were compared and analyzed.And follow-up for 2 years, the pregnancy rate and live birth rate were statistical analysis. (1) The grade of IUA according to AFS and CSGE scoring criteria was less consistent (=0.295, <0.001). Compared with AFS, the proportion of severe IUA cases diagnosed by CSGE was significantly lower [45.8% (173/378) vs 15.1% (57/378); =0.22, 95%: 0.15-0.30, <0.01); the proportions of both mild and moderate IUA cases were significantly higher (=4.16, 95%: 2.38-7.14; =2.38, 95%: 1.75-3.23; both <0.01). (2) The pregnancy rates of mild, moderate and severe IUA diagnosed according to CSGE were 11/13, 64.5% (147/228), 31.8% (7/22), live birth rates were 11/13, 54.8% (125/228) and 22.7% (5/22), respectively; there were statistically significant differences between the groups (all <0.01). The pregnancy rates of mild, moderate and severe IUA diagnosed based on AFS were 3/3, 66.9% (97/145) and 56.5% (65/115), respectively, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (>0.05). (3) IUA grades based on both CSGE and AFS criteria were significantly negatively correlated with pregnancy rates and live birth rates (CSGE: =-0.210, =-0.226; AFS: =-0.130, =-0.147; all <0.05). Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that CSGE had higher for both pregnancy rates and live birth rates compared to AFS (3.889 vs 1.657, 3.983 vs 1.554, respectrvely). Compared with AFS, the IUA grade based on CSGE is better related with reproductive prognosis, suggesting that the CSGE standard might be more objective and comprehensive and has better predictive value for reproductive prognosis, thus avoiding overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

摘要

探讨中国妇科内镜学会(CSGE)与美国生殖医学学会(AFS)宫腔粘连(IUA)评分标准在IUA分级方面的异同及其对生殖预后的预测价值。2016年1月至2019年1月,北京妇产医院共有1249例患者经宫腔镜诊断为IUA。共纳入378例临床资料完整的患者,对CSGT和AFS评分标准的诊断结果进行比较分析。并随访2年,对妊娠率和活产率进行统计分析。(1)根据AFS和CSGE评分标准得出的IUA分级一致性较差(κ=0.295,P<0.001)。与AFS相比,CSGE诊断的重度IUA病例比例显著更低[45.8%(173/378)对15.1%(57/378);P=0.22,95%CI:0.15-0.30,P<0.01];轻度和中度IUA病例的比例均显著更高(P=4.16,95%CI:2.38-7.14;P=2.38,95%CI:1.75-3.23;均P<0.01)。(2)根据CSGE诊断的轻度、中度和重度IUA的妊娠率分别为11/13、64.5%(147/228)、31.8%(7/22),活产率分别为11/13、54.8%(125/228)和22.7%(5/22);组间差异有统计学意义(均P<0.01)。基于AFS诊断的轻度、中度和重度IUA的妊娠率分别为3/3、66.9%(97/145)和56.5%(65/115),组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(3)基于CSGE和AFS标准的IUA分级与妊娠率和活产率均呈显著负相关(CSGE:r=-0.210,P=-0.226;AFS:r=-0.130,P=-0.147;均P<0.05)。单因素logistic回归分析显示,与AFS相比,CSGE在妊娠率和活产率方面的比值比更高(分别为3.889对1.657,3.983对1.554)。与AFS相比,基于CSGE的IUA分级与生殖预后的相关性更好,提示CSGE标准可能更客观、全面,对生殖预后具有更好的预测价值,从而避免过度诊断和过度治疗。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验