ReviewEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2024
Differences in cervical length during the second trimester among normal weight, overweight and obese women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review 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 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Weight Status on Risk of Perioperative Complications Associated With Surgical Abortion: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Maternal obesity has been previously linked to increased risk of preterm birth; however, the actual pathophysiology behind this observation remains unknown. Cervical length seems to differentiate among overweight, obese and extremely obese patients, compared to normal weight women. However, to date the actual association between body mass index and cervical length remains unknown. In this systematic review, accumulated evidence is presented to help establish clinical implementations and research perspectives. Methods: We searched Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception till February 2023. Observational studies that reported on women undergone ultrasound assessment of their cervical length during pregnancy were included, when there was data regarding their body mass index. Statistical meta-analysis was performed with RStudio. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Results: Overall, 20 studies were included in this systematic review and 12 in the meta-analysis. Compared to women with normal weight, underweight women were not associated with increased risk of CL < 15 mm or < 30 mm and their mean CL was comparable (MD -1.51; 95% CI -3.07, 0.05). Overweight women were found to have greater cervical length compared to women with normal weight (MD 1.87; 95% CI 0.52, 3.23) and had a lower risk of CL < 30 mm (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.47, 0.90). Conclusion: Further research into whether BMI is associated with cervical length in pregnant women is deemed necessary, with large, well-designed, prospective cohort studies with matched control group.
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.