Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38323103›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2024

Perinatal outcomes of emergency and elective cervical cerclages.

Aytaj Jafarzade, Sveta Aghayeva, Tamer M Mungan, Aydan Biri, Elchin Jabiyev, Osman Ufuk Ekiz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Aytaj JafarzadeKoru Hospital Ankara, Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department, Kızılırmak, 1450, Sk. No:13, 06510 Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey.
Sveta AghayevaKoru Hospital Ankara, Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department, Kızılırmak, 1450, Sk. No:13, 06510 Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey.
Tamer M MunganKoru Hospital Ankara, Perinatology Department, Kızılırmak, 1450, Sk. No:13, 06510 Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey.
Aydan BiriKoru Hospital Ankara, Perinatology Department, Kızılırmak, 1450, Sk. No:13, 06510 Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey.
Elchin JabiyevKoru Hospital Ankara, Neonatal Intensive Care Unite, Kızılırmak, 1450, Sk. No:13, 06510 Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey.
Osman Ufuk EkizGazi University, Statistic Department, Emniyet mah, Gazi Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü, Bandırma Cad, No:6/1, 06560 Yenimahalle, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to compare the perinatal outcomes of emergency and elective cervical cerclages. Material and Methods: This retrospective study included a total of 247 patients, with a total of 142 emergency (with a history of mid-trimester miscarriage or vaginal delivery of < 34 weeks and cervical length < 25 mm) and 105 electives cerclage patients (with painless cervical dilation and cervical length <25 mm) who had cerclage with the vaginal cervical McDonald technique between 1.1.2017-1.10.2022. Pregnant women with normal screening tests at weeks 11-14, normal fetal morphology, and singleton pregnancies were included in the study. The study was conducted in a tertiary center providing NICU care for < 1500 g, less than 32 weeks of age, and on a mechanical ventilator. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes were reviewed. Results: There was no statistical difference between the two groups regarding maternal age or BMI. It was observed that the week of delivery was greater for elective cerclages than for emergency cerclages (mean 34.6 GW versus 30.8 GW). The week of cerclage application was statistically higher in emergency cerclage (19.2 GW versus 16.3 GW p < 0.000). In addition, when we evaluated perinatal complications: prenatal Ex (n34 vs. n8 p < 0.001), C-reactive protein which is a marker of neonatal infection (12.7 mg/L vs. 2.5 mg/L p < 0.022), antibiotic use in the NICU (n 35 vs. n23 p < 0.050), the number of days of antibiotic use in the NICU (mean 15.3 days vs. 10.4 days p < 0.024), rate of NICU intubation (n 27 vs. n 11 p < 0.003), and neonatal sequelae (n 16 vs. n 6 p < 0.016) were significantly higher in the emergency cerclage group than in the elective cerclage group. There was no found significant difference between the progesterone given and not given progesterone after the procedure in term of the weeks of delivery ( Conclusion: Considering the available information, the results of elective cerclage seem to be more beneficial for the patient than those of emergency cerclage. Therefore, it would be more reasonable to perform elective cerclage in patients with mid-trimester or preterm miscarriage and concomitant cervical shortening before emergency cerclage is required. Furthermore, the benefit of progestin, in addition after surgical intervention, has not been established.

Indexed as

Cervical cerclageCervical insufficiencyCervical shorteningElective cerclageEmergency cerclagePreterm birth

Identifiers

PMID38323103
PMCPMC10844811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.