ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2020
Expectant versus immediate delivery in women with PPROM between 34 and 35
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Abdelazim equation: For 24-h urine protein from spot urine sample in preeclampsia.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextStudies comparing the efficacy of expectant management (EM) and immediate delivery (ID) in the management of women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM) between 34 and 35
aimsThis study compared women with PPROM between 34 and 35 SETTINGS AND
designLarge tertiary center and retrospective cohort. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data of 206 women with PPROM between 34 and 35 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Data was summarized using mean standard deviation (SD) or median interquartile range for continuous variables and frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Continuous variables were compared using independent
resultsNeonatal sepsis was seen in 1/75 (1.3%) in the group managed expectantly and 12/206 (5.8%) in the ID group (
conclusionsExpectant management was more expensive.
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.