Terminology for describing normally sited and ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound: ESHRE recommendations for good practice.
ESHRE
early pregnancy
ectopic pregnancy
guideline
terminology
ultrasound
Journal
Human reproduction open
ISSN: 2399-3529
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101722764
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
06
10
2020
revised:
09
10
2020
entrez:
23
12
2020
pubmed:
24
12
2020
medline:
24
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
What recommendations can be provided to improve terminology for normal and ectopic pregnancy description on ultrasound? The present ESHRE document provides 17 consensus recommendations on how to describe normally sited and different types of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound. Current diagnostic criteria stipulate that each type of ectopic pregnancy can be defined by clear anatomical landmarks which facilitates reaching a correct diagnosis. However, a clear definition of normally sited pregnancies and a comprehensive classification of ectopic pregnancies are still lacking. A working group of members of the ESHRE Special Interest Group in Implantation and Early Pregnancy (SIG-IEP) and selected experts in ultrasound was formed in order to write recommendations on the classification of ectopic pregnancies. The working group included nine members of different nationalities with internationally recognised experience in ultrasound and diagnosis of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound. This document is developed according to the manual for development of ESHRE recommendations for good practice. The recommendations were discussed until consensus by the working group, supported by a survey among the members of the ESHRE SIG-IEP. A clear definition of normally sited pregnancy on ultrasound scan is important to avoid misdiagnosis of uterine ectopic pregnancies. A comprehensive classification of ectopic pregnancy must include definitions and descriptions of each type of ectopic pregnancy. Only a classification which provides descriptions and diagnostic criteria for all possible locations of ectopic pregnancy would be fit for use in routine clinical practice. The working group formulated 17 recommendations on the diagnosis of the different types of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound. In addition, for each of the types of ectopic pregnancy, a schematic representation and examples on 2D and 3D ultrasound are provided. Owing to the limited evidence available, recommendations are mostly based on clinical and technical expertise. This document is expected to have a significant impact on clinical practice in ultrasound for early pregnancy. The development of this terminology will help to reduce the risk of misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment. The meetings of the working group were funded by ESHRE. T.T. declares speakers' fees from GE Healthcare. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. N/A. This Good Practice Recommendations (GPR) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. ESHRE's GPRs should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. Furthermore, ESHRE's GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, recommendation or favouring of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33354626
doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa055
pii: hoaa055
pmc: PMC7738750
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
hoaa055Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Références
Obstet Gynecol. 1981 Aug;58(2):167-75
pubmed: 7254728
J Ultrasound Med. 2015 Apr;34(4):601-10
pubmed: 25792575
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2012;74(4):249-60
pubmed: 23108297
BJOG. 2018 Dec;125(13):1663-1670
pubmed: 29697890
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 25;14(1):e0210788
pubmed: 30682068
J Ultrasound Med. 2017 Jun;36(6):1081-1087
pubmed: 28429456
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Aug;28(2):121-2
pubmed: 16933302
Reprod Biomed Online. 2020 Jun;40(6):880-886
pubmed: 32414664
World J Emerg Surg. 2007 Sep 07;2:23
pubmed: 17825105
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Nov;187(5):1416-23
pubmed: 12439541
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jul;52(1):103-109
pubmed: 29143993
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014 Feb;40(2):453-8
pubmed: 24118330
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2015;7(1):60-3
pubmed: 25897372
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Sep;300(3):651-660
pubmed: 31338659
Obstet Gynecol. 1989 May;73(5 Pt 1):770-4
pubmed: 2649821
BJOG. 2016 Dec;123(13):e15-e55
pubmed: 27813249
Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec 14;2019:1489751
pubmed: 31929925
Fertil Steril. 1989 Feb;51(2):354-6
pubmed: 2912784
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;222(5):B2-B14
pubmed: 31972162
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;105(6):1456-67
pubmed: 15932844
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;54(4):538-544
pubmed: 30937982
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jun;33(6):711-5
pubmed: 19444867
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Jun;57(3):342-345
pubmed: 27456318
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 May;37(5):588-95
pubmed: 21520315
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jan;105(1):42-5
pubmed: 15625140
Radiology. 1993 Oct;189(1):83-7
pubmed: 8372223
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Nov;16(6):592-3
pubmed: 11169360
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Mar;21(3):220-7
pubmed: 12666214
Hum Reprod. 2017 Sep 1;32(9):1786-1801
pubmed: 29117321
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Dec;300(6):1507-1520
pubmed: 31729562
N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 10;369(15):1443-51
pubmed: 24106937
Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;135(1):175-184
pubmed: 31809430