ArticleInternational journal of reproductive biomedicine2026
Evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of cervical length and angles in predicting delivery mode: A cross-sectional study.
Article in International journal of reproductive biomedicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Predicting delivery mode is crucial to obstetric care and influences clinical decision-making and management strategies. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of cervical length (CL) and cervical angles (CAs) measurements as predictors of delivery mode. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 100 pregnant women who underwent ultrasound assessments to measure CL and CAs. Participants were monitored until labor induction, with delivery mode categorized as successful vaginal deliveries or cesarean sections. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the diagnostic value of cervical measurements in predicting these outcomes. Results: The results demonstrate significant correlations between CL and both posterior and anterior CAs with the likelihood of cesarean sections, yielding odds ratios of 1.59, 0.68, and 1.48, respectively (p Conclusion: The findings indicated that CL and the anterior CA exhibit a direct significant correlation, whereas the posterior CA showed a significant reverse correlation with the occurrence of cesarean section. The diagnostic accuracy metrics reveal that CL possesses moderate predictive capability for labor outcomes. The posterior demonstrated high sensitivity, in contrast, anterior CA had high specificity but lower sensitivity levels. The small sample size and possible measurement inaccuracies may limit the reliability of our findings, highlighting the need for larger studies with standardized techniques to validate these results.
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.