SynthesisPloS one2025
Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after history-indicated and ultrasound-indicated cervical cerclage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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.
- Pregnancy outcomes and prognostic factors after history- and ultrasound-indicated cerclage in women with cervical insufficiency and/or short cervix: A retrospective cohort study.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with a previous history of pregnancy loss and/or preterm delivery who underwent ultrasound-indicated cerclage (UIC) or history-indicated cerclage (HIC).
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases were searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) from inception to 30 April 2024. Eligible studies should have compared the outcomes of women with singleton pregnancies who underwent UIC or HIC. STATA version 15.0 was employed, and the analysis was done using a random effects model and unadjusted effect sizes from the included studies.
resultsOf 25 included studies (n = 3909), most (n = 18) were retrospective cohort studies. Compared to women who underwent HIC, UIC was associated with higher risk of having a preterm birth (<37 weeks of gestation) (OR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.17, 1.88; N = 15), low birth weight (<2500g) (OR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.32, 2.41; N = 6) and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (OR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.27, 2.27; N = 6,). Women with UIC also had a higher risk of chorioamnionitis (OR 2.34, 95% CI: 1.36, 4.04; N = 4). The risk of having a low APGAR score (5-minute score of less than 7), fetal death and preterm premature rupture of membrane (PPROM) was comparable among the two groups.
conclusionOur results demonstrate that UIC is associated with higher risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to HIC. However, our evidence emanates from observational studies and is prone to biases, particularly because the findings were unadjusted for potential confounders. More clinical trials are needed to confirm our observations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024544181.
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.