ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Clinical significance of true umbilical cord knot: a propensity score matching study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Fetal Death Due to an Unusual Coexistence of Two Umbilical Cord Anomalies: Analysis in a Forensic Perspective.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The benefit of active management in true knot of the umbilical cord: a retrospective study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTrue umbilical cord knot (TUCK) is a rare finding that often leads to intensified surveillance and patient anxiety. This study sought to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, and obstetric and neonatal outcomes of TUCK.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary university medical center in 2007-2019. Patients with singleton pregnancies diagnosed postnatally with TUCK were identified and compared to women without TUCK for obstetric and neonatal outcomes using propensity score matching (PSM).
resultsTUCK was diagnosed in 780 of the 96,766 deliveries (0.8%). Women with TUCK were older than those without TUCK (32.57 vs. 31.06 years, P < 0.001) and had higher gravidity (3 vs. 2, P < 001) and a higher rate of prior stillbirth (1.76% vs. 0.43%, P < 0.01). Following covariate adjustment, 732 women with TUCK were compared to 7320 matched controls. TUCK was associated with emergency cesarean delivery due to non-reassuring fetal heart rate (2.54% vs. 4.35%, P = 0.008, OR 1.71, 95%CI 1.14-2.56) and intrapartum meconium-stained amniotic fluid (19.26% vs. 15.41%, P = 0.022, OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.04-1.65). Neonatal outcomes were comparable except for higher rates of 1-min Apgar score < 7 and neonatal seizures in the TUCK group. The stillbirth rate was higher in the TUCK group, but the difference was not statistically significant (1.23% vs 0.62%, P = 0.06, OR 1.96, 95%CI 0.96-4.03).
conclusionsTUCK has several identifiable risk factors. Pregnant women with TUCK may cautiously be informed of the relatively low risks of major obstetric or perinatal complications. The lower occurrence of stillbirth in the TUCK group warrants further study.
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.