Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30363980›Full record

Trial reportBioMed research international2018

Emergency versus Elective Cervical Cerclage: An Audit of Our First Two Years of Service.

N Vasudeva, C Reddington, M Bogdanska, L De Luca

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BioMed research international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

N VasudevaObstetrics and Gynaecology Department, Sunshine Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4858-9649
C ReddingtonObstetrics and Gynaecology Department, Sunshine Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
M BogdanskaObstetrics and Gynaecology Department, Sunshine Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
L De LucaObstetrics and Gynaecology Department, Sunshine Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Sunshine Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the biggest obstetric challenges is the diagnosis and management of a short cervix as cervical length has an inverse relationship with risk of preterm birth. A cervical cerclage is a surgical procedure to reduce the risk of preterm birth and can be placed in an elective or emergency setting. This is a retrospective review of cervical cerclages inserted at an outer metropolitan hospital from February 2014 to May 2017. Since the introduction of the service, a total of 43 patients were identified as requiring a cervical cerclage. Four of these patients were transferred to tertiary hospitals. Of the 39 cerclages inserted, 26 were elective and 13 were emergency, placed at a mean gestation of 15.6 and 19.6 weeks. In total, there were 35 live births, 2 stillbirths, and 2 neonatal deaths. The maternal demographics (age, gravidity, parity, and preterm risk factors) were not statistically significant between the two groups. The mean pregnancy prolongation and birthweight was greater in the elective than the emergency group (21.4 versus 14.1 weeks; 3148.2 versus 2447.2 grams). There was no obvious pattern with which patients received antibiotics pre-, intra-, or postoperatively or received a vaginal swab. This audit identified the need for improvements to guidelines to standardise the use of antibiotics and progesterone in women with a cervical cerclage.

Indexed as

Cerclage, CervicalElective Surgical ProceduresEmergency Medical ServicesMedical AuditPregnancy OutcomeAdultFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansPregnancyPremature Birth

Identifiers

PMID30363980
PMCPMC6186325
OpenAlexW2893692172

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.