ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Impact of intrapartum cervical tear on subsequent pregnancy outcomes.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the impact of intrapartum cervical tears on outcomes in subsequent pregnancies, with specific consideration of tear dimensions and anatomical location.
designA retrospective cohort study of all women with intrapartum cervical tears. Primary outcomes were recurrent cervical tears and subsequent preterm birth.
resultsOn our cohort, 238 of 101,239 (0.23%) women who underwent vaginal delivery between August 2008 and May 2023, were diagnosed with intrapartum cervical tears. Among them, 116 (70%) were diagnosed with an anterior tear, 44 (26%) had a posterior tear, and 6 (4%) in both locations. Moreover, 56 (60%) had a tear of up to 2 cm, and 42 (40%) had a tear larger than 2 cm. Out of the women with cervical tears, 141 (59%) had a subsequent delivery. There was no significant difference in the rate of subsequent preterm birth (14% vs. 10%, OR 1.47 CI 95% 0.7–2.8, p = 0.26). Of the 141 who had a subsequent delivery, 107 (76%) delivered vaginally. A recurrent cervical tear had occurred only in 6 vaginal deliveries (5.4%), significantly higher compared to the overall incidence in our center (5.4% vs. 0.23%, OR 18.8 CI 95% 8.2–43.1, p < 0.01). Four out of the 6 (67%) cases were in women with a cervical cerclage. The location or the size of the cervical tear did not affect the likelihood of a recurrent tear or subsequent preterm birth.
conclusionsIntrapartum cervical tears are a significant risk factor for recurrent tears in subsequent pregnancies, yet with very low absolute incidence regardless of tear’s location and size. Most recurrences occurred in women with cervical cerclage.
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.