ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Clinical analysis of umbilical cord torsion-related prenatal stillbirth.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to investigate the high-risk factors and ultrasonic examination of umbilical cord torsion (UCT)-related prenatal stillbirth, with a specific focus on diagnostic challenges and clinical implications.
methodWe retrospectively analyzed the electronic data of 108 pregnant women(after 1:2 age propensity score matching from an initial 424 cases) with UCT who delivered from January 2013 to February 2024 in Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, University of Science and Technology. To mitigate confounding and address group imbalance, a 1:2 matching principle of the same age was performed (36 stillbirths vs. 72 live fetuses). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors. Model performance was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and Adjusted R². The diagnostic utility of prenatal ultrasound was comprehensively evaluated.
resultsAnalysis of the matched cohort confirmed balance in baseline characteristics and revealed seven significant associations. The multivariate model demonstrated excellent performance (AUC = 0.943, 95% CI: 0.895-0.991; Hosmer-Lemeshow P = 0.842). History of decreased or vanished fetal movement (OR = 64.337, 95% CI: 8.835-468.531, P < 0.001), umbilical cord root torsion at the fetal umbilical insertion site (OR = 24.426, 95% CI: 2.500-238.637, P = 0.006), and fetal growth restriction (FGR; OR = 13.292, 95% CI: 2.422-72.934, P = 0.003)were identified as the strongest independent predictors of UCT-related prenatal stillbirth. Other independent predictors (all P < 0.05) included: hydramnios (OR = 12.146, 95% CI: 1.684-87.620, P = 0.013); abnormal placental cord insertions (APCIs; OR = 0.050, P = 0.038, 95% CI: 0.003-0.841). Prenatal ultrasound exhibited a high specificity (93.1%) while a relatively weak sensitivity of 7.4% (95% CI: 3.3-14.2%), failing to detect 92.6% of UCT cases antenatally.
conclusionWe developed and validated a highly accurate prediction model for UCT-related prenatal stillbirth, identifying a history of decreased or vanished fetal movement, umbilical cord root torsion at the fetal umbilical insertion site, and FGR as the paramount risk factors. Given the profound limitations of conventional ultrasound in prenatal detection, clinical management must undergo a critical shift: from reactive reliance on imaging to proactive management based on maternal symptomatology. Thus, decreased fetal movement should be the primary indicator for urgent assessment, while any sonographic suggestion of umbilical root torsion and FGR should trigger intensified surveillance and delivery planning.
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.