ReviewPakistan journal of medical sciences2025
Comparative analysis of pregnancy outcomes after emergency and elective cerclage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical insufficiency poses significant risks to ongoing pregnancies, often necessitating interventions such as cervical cerclage. This review compares pregnancy outcomes in women who underwent emergency or elective cerclage. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science databases was conducted from the inception of these databases up to 30 April 2024. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS). Odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated depending on the type of outcome using random-effects model. Overall, 27 studies were included. Gestational age of women who underwent emergency cerclage was significantly higher at cerclage (WMD of 6.500 and 5.698 weeks for physical examination-guided and ultrasound-guided cerclage, respectively, compared to elective cerclage). Emergency cerclage placement was associated with lower neonatal birth weights, particularly in the physical examination-guided group (WMD = -780.52 grams). The risk of PROM was higher in the physical examination-guided emergency cerclage group (OR = 2.197). However, the incidence of PROM was comparable in the elective and ultrasound-guided groups. Physical examination-guided cerclage was associated with significantly higher vaginal delivery rates compared to the emergency cerclage (OR = 1.750). Emergency cerclage, especially when guided by physical examination, is associated with later gestation at application and higher risks of adverse neonatal outcomes compared to elective cerclage. Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42024546566.
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.