ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Association between cervical disorders and adverse obstetric outcomes: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: The purpose of this study was to explore the association of cervical disorders on obstetric outcomes of singleton pregnancies in China. Methods: This hospital-based retrospective cohort study of women with live singleton births included 71,097 Chinese women. We compared the risk of adverse obstetric outcomes in different types of pregnancies with cervical disorders with those with normal cervix. Logistic regression model was used to estimate the association between cervical disorders and adverse obstetric outcomes. Results: Women with cervical disorders had a higher risk of premature delivery (10.98 vs. 4.41%), preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) (3.48 vs. 1.62%), low birth weight (LBW) (7.62 vs. 2.92%) and very low birth weight (VLBW) (2.01 vs. 0.28%) than women with normal cervix. After adjusting for confounding factors, compared with women with normal cervix, women with high-grade abnormal cervical cytology are at greater risk of premature birth (adjusted OR 1.971, 95% CI: 1.302-2.983), premature rupture of membranes (PROM) (adjusted OR 1.379, 95% CI: 1.047-1.815), LBW (adjusted OR 1.790, 95% CI: 1.059-3.025), and VLBW (adjusted OR 4.519, 95% CI: 1.662-12.292) than women with low-grade abnormal cervical cytology, and women with abnormal cervical cytology after treatment had a higher risk of premature birth (adjusted OR 2.060, 95% CI: 1.348-3.147), PROM (adjusted OR 1.381, 95% CI: 1.038-1.839), PPROM (adjusted OR 1.995, 95% CI: 1.022-3.892), LBW (adjusted OR 1.801, 95% CI: 1.046-3.102), and VLBW (adjusted OR 4.868, 95% CI: 1.788-13.255) than untreated women. Conclusions: Our research showed that pregnant women with cervical disorders were more likely to have premature delivery, PPROM, LBW, and VLBW. Moreover, pregnant women with high-grade abnormal cervical cytology and abnormal cervical cytology after treatment had a higher risk of premature birth, PROM, LBW, and VLBW.
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.