Observational studyAmerican journal of perinatology2025
Indomethacin and Cefazolin for Physical Exam-Indicated Cerclage to Improve Latency: A Protocol Validation Study.
Observational study in American journal of perinatology, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A single-center randomized trial showed improved latency with use of indomethacin and cefazolin (I/C) during and following exam-indicated cerclage (EIC). The same center recently published a pre/post comparison demonstrating similar results. This research aimed to validate the protocol in a different setting.Retrospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies undergoing EIC at a single center between 2013 and 2022. EIC was performed for painless cervical dilation between 16 and 23 weeks' gestation with dilation ≥1 cm. Exposure was defined as receipt of I/C during and following EIC. The primary outcome was latency ≥ 28 days after cerclage placement. Secondary outcomes included latency; gestational age at delivery; delivery ≤ 28 weeks; preterm premature rupture of membranes; intra-amniotic infection (IAI); and median birth weight. Bivariate statistics were used to analyze data; multivariable regression analyses were used to control for confounders (progesterone use, cervical dilation at time of cerclage placement, history of preterm birth, and prolapsing membranes).EIC was placed in 81 pregnancies and 48 (59%) received I/C. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups, except that prolapsing membranes were significantly less likely in patients receiving I/C (6.2 vs. 21.2%;
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.