ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Diagnostic value of preoperative ultrasonography, cervical length measurement, and POP-Q examination in cervical elongation estimation.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review (and Meta-Analysis) and Global Expert Consensus Statements (U-POP): The Manchester Procedure.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Analysis of differences in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification scores at different anatomical sites before and after anesthesia for guiding surgical planning in female patients with pelvic organ prolapse.Asian journal of urology · 2026Article
- A novel technique for the measurement of cervical length in non-pregnant women.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2024Article
- Vaginal Hysterectomy Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse with Cervical Elongation: A Case Report.Oman medical journal · 2024Article
- Cervical Elongation - The Search for a Definition.Maedica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisCervical elongation (CE) has not been clearly defined and has similar symptoms to pelvic organ prolapse. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of preoperative POP-Q examinations, ultrasonographic measurements, and direct cervical length measurement with a Foley catheter in predicting CE on postoperative hysterectomy specimens.
methodsFifty-six patients who underwent vaginal hysterectomy for apical pelvic organ prolapse were included. The patients were divided into two groups based on the hysterectomy specimens' corpus/cervix ratio (CCR) as follows: the non-CE group, CCR > 1; the CE group, CCR < 1. The preoperative direct cervical length measurement was performed using 10-French Foley catheters. The recommended cutoff values and sensitivity/specificity analysis of the cervical measurements with Foley, ultrasound, and C-D measurements according to POP-Q were determined by the receiver-operating characteristic analysis.
resultsThere were 13 patients (23%) in the non-CE group and 43 patients (76%) in the CE group. The mean cervical measurements with Foley catheter and ultrasound, C-D diameter, and postoperative cervix measurements were 49.4 ± 12.6 mm, 42.14 ± 9.4 mm, 41.4 ± 17.2 mm, and 49.5 ± 13 mm, respectively. Cervical measurement with a Foley catheter had 65% sensitivity and 62.5% specificity with a 47.5-mm cutoff value. Among these preoperative measurements, Foley catheter measurements were the most compatible with postoperative cervical measurements. There was no significant association between CE and age, body mass index, menopause duration, point C, and point D.
conclusionCervical length measurement with a Foley catheter may be preferred for estimation of CE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.