Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40987744›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Nordic randomised trial on laparoscopic versus vaginal cerclage (NORACT): trial protocol for an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Lea Kirstine Hansen, Lise Qvirin Krogh, Annie Lantto, Niels Uldbjerg, Pernille Tine Jensen, Andrew Shennan, Kirsten Hald, Oskari Heikinheimo, Bo Jacobsson, Hulda Hjartardóttir and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06122506 (Nordic Randomized Trial on Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal Cerclage), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06122506 narecruitingnot on this map

Nordic Randomized Trial on Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal Cerclage

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of AarhusRan2024 to 2028Enrolled188ConditionsPreterm Birth, Cervical InsufficiencyArmsLaparoscopic cerclage, Vaginal cerclage
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Lea Kirstine HansenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark lea.hansen@clin.au.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1702-3933
Lise Qvirin KroghDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7397-4576
Annie LanttoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Niels UldbjergDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6449-6426
Pernille Tine JensenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Andrew ShennanDepartment of Women and Children's Health, St Thomas' Hospital, London, England, UK.
Kirsten HaldGynecological Department, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6954-870X
Oskari HeikinheimoObstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8671-130X
Bo JacobssonSahlgrenska University Hospital/Østra, Göteborg, Sweden and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Hulda HjartardóttirObstetrics and Prenatal Diagnosis Unit, Landspitali, Reykjavík, Capital Region, Iceland.
Helena KarypidisDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Julie GlavindDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9856-6621

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTransvaginal and transabdominal cerclage procedures have become established interventions to prevent mid-trimester pregnancy loss and preterm birth. Transabdominal cerclage seems to be superior to transvaginal cerclage in women with a history of a failed transvaginal cerclage. However, with the availability of a less invasive laparoscopic procedure, there is limited evidence concerning which type of cerclage to recommend to many other risk groups. The objective of this trial is to compare laparoscopic abdominal cerclage and transvaginal cerclage in women at moderate to high risk of spontaneous preterm birth. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial is an open, multicentre, superiority, parallel arm randomised controlled investigator-initiated trial with an embedded internal pilot. Women in whom the clinician has clinical equipoise between laparoscopic and transvaginal cerclage are randomised to either laparoscopic abdominal or transvaginal cerclage in a ratio of 1:1. The trial extends from sites in Denmark, Finland and Norway. The primary outcome is birth <32 weeks of gestation. A total sample of 188 participants will be included to detect an absolute difference of 15% in the primary outcome between the two groups. Analysis will be by intention-to-treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Central Denmark Region Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics, Denmark, Helsinki University Hospital Ethics committee, Finland and the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics, Norway approved the trial. This protocol is published prior to complete data collection and analysis. Important protocol changes will be made publicly available on ClinicalTrials.org, on the trial website and distributed electronically to all active sites. Positive, inconclusive as well as negative results from the trial will be published in peer-reviewed international scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06122506.

Indexed as

Cerclage, CervicalLaparoscopyPremature BirthUterine Cervical IncompetenceAdultEquivalence Trials as TopicFemaleFinlandHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicNorwayPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicScandinavian and Nordic CountriesOBSTETRICSPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trial

Identifiers

PMID40987744
PMCPMC12458708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.