Pregnancy of unknown location: a consensus statement of nomenclature, definitions, and outcome

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorBarnhart, K.
dc.contributor.authorvan Mello, N.
dc.contributor.authorBourne, T.
dc.contributor.authorKirk, E.
dc.contributor.authorVan Calster, B.
dc.contributor.authorBottomley, C.
dc.contributor.authorChung, K.
dc.contributor.authorCondous, G.
dc.contributor.authorGoldstein, S.
dc.contributor.authorHajenius, P.
dc.contributor.authorMol, B.
dc.contributor.authorMolinaro, T.
dc.contributor.authorO'Flynn O'Brien, K.
dc.contributor.authorHusicka, R.
dc.contributor.authorSammel, M.
dc.contributor.authorTimmerman, D.
dc.date.issued2011
dc.description.abstractObjective: To improve the interpretation of future studies in women who are initially diagnosed with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL), we propose a consensus statement with definitions of population, target disease, and final outcome. Design: A review of literature and a series of collaborative international meetings were used to develop a consensus for definitions and final outcomes of women initially diagnosed with a PUL. Result(s): Global differences were noted in populations studied and in the definitions of outcomes. We propose to define initial ultrasound classification of findings into five categories: definite ectopic pregnancy (EP), probable EP, PUL, probable intrauterine pregnancy (IUP), and definite IUP. Patients with a PUL should be followed and final outcomes should be categorized as visualized EP, visualized IUP, spontaneously resolved PUL, and persisting PUL. Those with the transient condition of a persisting PUL should ultimately be classified as nonvisualized EP, treated persistent PUL, resolved persistent PUL, or histologic IUP. These specific categories can be used to characterize the natural history or location (intrauterine vs. extrauterine) of any early gestation where the initial location is unknown. Conclusion(s): Careful definition of populations and classification of outcomes should optimize objective interpretation of research, allow objective assessment of future reproductive prognosis, and hopefully lead to improved clinical care of women initially identified to have a PUL.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityKurt Barnhart, Norah M. van Mello, Tom Bourne, Emma Kirk, Ben Van Calster, Cecilia Bottomley, Karine Chung, George Condous, Steven Goldstein, Petra J. Hajenius, Ben Willem Mol, M Thomas Molinaro, Katherine L. O’Flynn O’Brien, Richard Husicka, Mary Sammel and Dirk Timmerman
dc.identifier.citationFertility and Sterility, 2011; 95(3):857-866
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.09.006
dc.identifier.issn0015-0282
dc.identifier.issn1556-5653
dc.identifier.orcidMol, B. [0000-0001-6887-0262] [0000-0001-8337-550X]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/88188
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.rightsCopyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.09.006
dc.subjectNomenclature; pregnancy of unknown location; international consensus; ectopic pregnancy
dc.titlePregnancy of unknown location: a consensus statement of nomenclature, definitions, and outcome
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications