ArticlePloS one
Patient's experience with the Arabin cervical pessary during pregnancy: A questionnaire survey.
Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short cervix and use of cervical pessary for preventing preterm birth in singleton and twin pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025Pooled it
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe cervical pessary is used in women with precocious cervical ripening to prevent preterm birth. Up to now however, there have been no systematic studies on compliance and tolerance, which vary among different study cohorts. MATERIAL AND
methodsA questionnaire was administered to 166 women treated with the Arabin cervical pessary in one center. Data were analysed about the patient's experience before insertion (adequacy of information received), during treatment (follow-up, impact on daily life, perceived discomfort, side effects) and at the time of removal (pain, if the patient's expectations had been met regarding the treatment).
resultsInformation received before the insertion of the Arabin cervical pessary was considered adequate in 163/166 (98.2%) women. An increase in vaginal discharge was experienced by 70/166 (42.2%) women. Discomfort or other side effects were reported in 13.8% and 16.3% of cases, respectively. Overall, 77% of women reported an improved quality of life and 94% considered the follow-up during pregnancy adequate. Removal was moderately painful for 58/166 (35%) of women. Patient's expectations regarding the treatment were exceeded in the majority of cases (75.3%). In a final step, we compared our results to previous studies regarding the use of the pessary in singleton and twin pregnancies.
conclusionAlthough some trials report high rates of non-compliant patients, this could not be confirmed by our study. In contrast, most women reported having a positive experience and that they were motivated to continue the treatment when they were continuously followed by experienced clinicians.
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.