Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39681135›Full record

Observational studyAmerican journal of perinatology2025

Indomethacin and Cefazolin for Physical Exam-Indicated Cerclage to Improve Latency: A Protocol Validation Study.

Nicola R Young, Luke A Gatta, Sarahn M Wheeler, Jerome J Federspiel, Sarah K Dotters-Katz

Abstract readObservational StudyValidation StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Nicola R YoungSchool of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0002-8449-2027
Luke A GattaDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0003-1821-2258
Sarahn M WheelerDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0001-8384-3721
Jerome J FederspielDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0003-0321-6280
Sarah K Dotters-KatzDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0002-9951-8330

Funding

Duke Women's Reproductive Health Research ScholarsK12HD103083 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Cindy Amundsen · 2020 to 2026
$2.2M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD103083
6 · The paper itself

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

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCefazolinCerclage, CervicalClinical ProtocolsIndomethacinTocolytic AgentsAdultFemaleGestational AgeHumansPhysical ExaminationPregnancyPremature BirthPremature Rupture of Fetal MembranesRegression AnalysisRetrospective StudiesAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefazolinIndomethacinTocolytic Agents

Identifiers

PMID39681135
PMCPMC12238287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.