ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2025
Retrospective evaluation of transvaginal cervical cerclage cases in a tertiary reference center: comparison of indications and suture materials.
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Braided Polyester Sutures with Different Manufacturing Characteristics in Cervical Cerclage: A Pilot Study Comparing Obstetric Outcomes and Operative Characteristics.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare history-indicated cervical cerclage (HICC), ultrasound-indicated CC (UICC) and physical examination-indicated CC (PEICC) in terms of obstetric outcomes and to compare the outcomes related to braided and non-braided suture materials (Prolene suture vs. Mersilene tape). Material and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 173 transvaginal CC procedures performed in a single center. Cases were classified based on procedure indications and the type of suture material used. Results: Of the 173 cases reviewed, 103 (59.5%), 45 (26.0%) and 25 (14.4%) cases were in the HICC, UICC and PEICC groups, respectively. Patients in the PEICC group underwent cerclage at significantly later gestational weeks, had higher hospitalization rates, longer hospital stays following the procedure, a shorter interval between cerclage and delivery, and a higher rate of procedure-related pregnancy loss compared to the other groups (p<0.05 for all). Both the gestational age at delivery and the take-home baby rate were lower in this group compared to the other groups (p<0.05 for both). There were no significant differences identified in terms of suture materials used. Subgroup analyses revealed similar obstetric outcomes between different suture materials. Conclusion: PEICC had worse perinatal outcomes compared to HICC and UICC procedures. CC indication was the major determinant of perinatal outcome in this cohort while suture material had no significant effect on perinatal 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.