Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Two-stitch versus one-stitch cervical cerclage in women with high risk for preterm birth: a stratified exploratory randomized controlled trial in China.
Trial report in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical insufficiency or sonographic short cervix is a major cause of preterm birth (PTB). The efficacy of two-stitch versus one-stitch cerclage remains controversial, with limited evidence from randomized controlled trial (RCT), especially stratified by indication.
methodsWe conducted a single-centre, stratified, exploratory RCT at Fujian Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Fuzhou, China. Women with singleton pregnancies were enrolled into two parallel cohorts: a therapeutic cohort (ultrasound-indicated; cervical length ≤ 25 mm at 16–28 weeks) and an emergency cohort (physical examination-indicated; painless cervical dilatation with or without membrane exposure at 16–28 weeks). Within each cohort, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive McDonald cerclage with either two-stitch or one-stitch. The primary outcome was spontaneous PTB < 34 weeks. RR with 95% CI was calculated as the primary measure of effect size between groups.
resultsBetween June 2022 and December 2024, 100 women were enrolled and stratified (therapeutic, n = 50; emergency, n = 50). In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of spontaneous PTB < 34 weeks between the two-stitch and one-stitch groups in the therapeutic cohort (16.0% vs 0.0%; RR not calculable; p = 0.110) or the emergency cohort (40.0% vs 48.0%; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44–1.57; p = 0.569). However, an exploratory analysis of the emergency cohort revealed that the two-stitch technique was associated with a reduced incidence of PTB < 28 weeks (12.0% vs 40.0%; RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09–0.96; p = 0.024). Neonatal survival rates did not differ significantly in either cohort.
conclusionsIn the therapeutic setting, the two-stitch technique was not superior to the one-stitch approach. For emergency cerclage, while the primary outcome was not significantly reduced, a secondary analysis showed an association between the two-stitch technique and a reduced incidence of extreme PTB < 28 weeks. This hypothesis-generating finding suggests a potential benefit in preventing extreme PTB < 28 weeks and must be validated in larger, definitive trials.
trial registrationThe Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR), Identification Number ChiCTR2200058540. https://www.chictr.org.cn/bin/project/edit?pid=159942.
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.