ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Vasa Previa: Prenatal Diagnosis and the Rationale Behind Using a 5 cm Distance from Internal Os.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revisiting vasa previa risk thresholds: integrating non-Euclidean geometry for precision in screening.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026Article
- Article
- Predictive model for preterm premature rupture of membranes following fetal endoscopy laser coagulation in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome surgery.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
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
In pregnancies with vasa previa, prenatal diagnosis and pre-labor cesarean delivery are associated with significantly improved perinatal outcomes compared to undetected cases. However, a universally accepted ultrasonographic definition of vasa previa is lacking. Specifically, the distance from the cervical internal os beyond which vaginal delivery can be safely recommended remains to be determined. Field experts and recently published societal guidelines agree that a 2 cm cut-off is suboptimal, given that complete cervical dilation during labor risks unprotected fetal vessels within a 5 cm radius from the internal os. Thus, in the setting of a scarcity of evidence and case reports of perinatal death with unprotected fetal vessels beyond 2 cm from the internal os, a more conservative definition that includes unprotected fetal vessels located within 5 cm of the internal os is imperative to improve outcomes.
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.