ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2025
Association between the timing of cervical cerclage placement and postoperative outcomes: A retrospective study.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PurposeTo explore the association between the timing of cervical cerclage placement and postoperative outcomes.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed postoperative outcomes in pregnant women who underwent cervical cerclage at our hospital between January 2020 and December 2023. Participants were divided into nonterm and term birth groups.ResultsCompared with the term birth group, the nonterm birth group had significantly shorter cervical length (10.02 ± 8.17 vs. 23.40 ± 10.93 mm; p < 0.001), wider cervical orifice width (7.50 ± 10.71 vs. 1.12 ± 4.79 mm; p < 0.001), longer duration of postoperative hospitalization (29.53 ± 22.76 vs. 18.12 ± 21.26 days; p < 0.001), longer administration period of tocolytics (28.13 ± 22.26 vs. 16.15 ± 21.30 days; p < 0.001), lower neonatal birth age (33.07 ± 3.27 vs. 38.32 ± 0.95 weeks; p < 0.001), lower neonatal birth weight (2081.40 ± 641.36 vs. 3266.30 ± 352.76 g; p < 0.001), and lower Apgar score at 1 minute (10 (3-10) vs. 10 (3-10); p < 0.001). Cervical length showed higher sensitivity in determining the timing of cervical cerclage placement (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.830 vs. 0.669), with a cutoff value of 17 mm (sensitivity: 83.33%, specificity: 71.43%).ConclusionCervical cerclage may be beneficial in asymptomatic pregnancies where the cervical length is ≤17 mm or the cervix is undilated.
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.