ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Efficacy of late cervical cerclage for preventing preterm birth in pregnancies complicated by cervical incompetence: retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare different periods of cerclage placement in preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancies complicated by cervical incompetence.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Shanghai, China. A total of 499 singleton pregnancies undergoing prophylactic cervical cerclage between January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2023, at Shanghai East Hospital were included in the study. Participants were classified into the early cerclage group (cerclage performed at 11
resultsThe median gestational ages at delivery were similar between the early cerclage group and the late cerclage group (median (IQR) 38.1 (36.6-39.1) vs. 38.3 (37.1-39.0) weeks, p = 0.568). There was no difference in preterm birth rates of < 37 (28.0%, 93/332 vs. 21.0%, 35/167, p = 0.089), < 34 (14.8%, 49/332 vs. 11.4%, 18/167, p = 0.218), or < 28 (6.9%, 23/332 vs. 3.0%, 5/167, p = 0.072) weeks of gestation between the early cerclage group and the late cerclage group. The incidence rates of chorioamnionitis, premature rupture of membranes, and cesarean section were comparable between the two groups. As a primary indicator of neonatal outcomes, the survival rates of newborns at three months post-delivery were similar between the early and late cerclage groups (94.6%, 314/332 vs. 98.2%, 164/167, p = 0.061). Birth weights of newborns in the early and late cerclage groups were not significantly different (median (IQR) 3080.0 (2652.5-3450.0) vs. 3210.0 (2600.0-3550.0) g, p = 0.100). The incidence rate of 5-minute Apgar scores < 7 in the late cerclage group was significantly lower than that in the early cerclage group (1.8%, 3/167 vs. 6.3%, 21/332, p = 0.026). The incidence rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission, and respiratory distress syndrome were similar between the two groups.
conclusionsOur retrospective study demonstrated that the efficacy and risk of prophylactic cervical cerclage performed at 16
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.