ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2024
Impact of congenital uterine anomalies on obstetric and perinatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Uterine factor infertility-current understanding and limitations.Uterine research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Congenital uterine anomalies (CUA) can be associated with impairments of early and late pregnancy events. Objective: To assess the impact of CUA on reproductive outcomes in pregnancies conceived spontaneously or after assisted reproduction. Materials and Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing patients with CUA versus women with normal uterus. A structured literature search was performed in leading scientific databases to identify prospective and retrospective studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale, adapted to AHRQ standards, was used to assess the risk of bias. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated. Publication bias and statistical heterogeneity were assessed, and meta-regression was used to analyse the heterogeneity. Main outcome measures: Miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, placental abruption, term, and premature rupture of membranes (PROM), malpresentation at delivery, preterm delivery prior to 37, 34 and 32 weeks, caesarean delivery, intrauterine growth restriction/small for gestational age, foetal mortality and perinatal mortality. Results: 32 studies were included. CUAs increased significantly the risk of first/second trimester miscarriage (OR:1.54;95%CI:1.14-2.07), placental abruption (OR:5.04;3.60-7.04), PROM (OR:1.71;1.34-2.18), foetal malpresentation at delivery (OR:21.04;10.95-40.44), preterm birth (adjusted OR:4.34;3.59-5.21), a caesarean delivery (adjusted OR:7.69;4.17-14.29), intrauterine growth restriction/small for gestational age (adjusted OR:50;6.11-424), foetal mortality (OR:2.07;1.56-2.73) and perinatal mortality (OR:3.28;2.01-5.36). Conclusions: CUA increases the risk of complications during pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum. Complications most frequent in CUA patients were preterm delivery, foetal malpresentation, and caesarean delivery. What is new?: Bicornuate uterus was associated with the highest number of adverse outcomes, followed by didelphys, subseptate and septate uterus.
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.