Trial reportInternational journal of women's health2020
The Comparative Study of Cervical Shear Wave Elastography Between Twin and Singleton Pregnancy.
Trial report in International journal of women's health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical application of cervical shear wave elastography in predicting the risk of preterm delivery in DCDA twin pregnancy.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the cervical shear wave elastography (SWE) by using transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) between twin and singleton pregnant women. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a prospective cohort study involving the twin and singleton pregnant women who attended the antenatal care at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. The participants who met the inclusion criteria were serially measured the shear wave speed (SWS) by using TVS at early, mid-, and third trimester. The changes in SWS with advancing gestational age between twin and singleton pregnancies were evaluated. The gestational age at delivery and spontaneous preterm delivery rate were also analyzed.
resultsA total of 36 twin pregnancies and 38 singleton pregnancies were analyzed. No significant difference in baseline characteristics, except the age of participants (twin pregnancies 33.1±4.6 years, singleton pregnancies 29.9±5.4 years, p-value = 0.006) was observed. The cervical SWS decreased with advancing gestational age in both twin and singleton pregnancy, but there was a statistically significant difference of cervical SWS at the lower point in mid-trimester (twin pregnancies 2.27±0.4, singleton pregnancies 2.71±0.6 m/s, p-value = 0.001). However, no significant difference in cervical SWS at the upper point and the lower point in the early and third trimester was demonstrated. Even though the gestational age at delivery between both groups revealed a significant difference (twin pregnancies 35.9±2.8, singleton pregnancies 37.6±2.9 wk., p-value = 0.008) but the spontaneous preterm delivery rate did not differ significantly (twin pregnancies 22.2%, singleton pregnancies 15.8%, p-value = 0.483).
conclusionThe mid-trimester cervical SWS measurement at the lower point detects the difference in cervical softness between twin pregnancies and singleton pregnancies. The cervical SWS might be an additional option for monitoring the change in cervical softness in twin pregnancies.
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.