ArticlePloS one2022
Cervical length distribution among Brazilian pregnant population and risk factors for short cervix: A multicenter cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Differences in cervical length during the second trimester among normal weight, overweight and obese women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSince there are populational differences and risk factors that influence the cervical length, the aim of the study was to construct a populational curve with measurements of the uterine cervix of pregnant women in the second trimester of pregnancy and to evaluate which variables were related to cervical length (CL) ≤25 mm. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a multicenter cross-sectional study performed at 17 hospitals in several regions of Brazil. From 2015 to 2019, transvaginal ultrasound scan was performed in women with singleton pregnancies at 18 0/7 to 22 6/7 weeks of gestation to measure the CL. We analyzed CL regarding its distribution and the risk factors for CL ≤25 mm using logistic regression.
resultsThe percentage of CL ≤ 25mm was 6.67%. Shorter cervices, when measured using both straight and curve techniques, showed similar results: range 21.0-25.0 mm in straight versus 22.6-26.0 mm in curve measurement for the 5th percentile. However, the difference between the two techniques became more pronounced after the 75th percentile (range 41.0-42.0 mm straight x 43.6-45.0 mm in curve measurement). The risk factors identified for short cervix were low body mass index (BMI) (OR: 1.81 CI: 1.16-2.82), higher education (OR: 1.39 CI: 1.10-1.75) and personal history ([one prior miscarriage OR: 1.41 CI: 1.11-1.78 and ≥2 prior miscarriages OR: 1.67 CI: 1.24-2.25], preterm birth [OR: 1.70 CI: 1.12-2.59], previous low birth weight <2500 g [OR: 1.70 CI: 1.15-2.50], cervical surgery [OR: 4.33 CI: 2.58-7.27]). By contrast, obesity (OR: 0.64 CI: 0.51-0.82), living with a partner (OR: 0.76 CI: 0.61-0.95) and previous pregnancy (OR: 0.46 CI: 0.37-0.57) decreased the risk of short cervix.
conclusionsThe CL distribution showed a relatively low percentage of cervix ≤25 mm. There may be populational differences in the CL distribution and this as well as the risk factors for short CL need to be considered when adopting a screening strategy for short cervix.
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.