Observational studyArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Does suture number matter in transvaginal cervical cerclage? A propensity score-weighted cohort study.
Observational study in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Indication-dependent heterogeneity in the effect of double-suture cerclage: concerns over indication classification and a call for stratified analysis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Reply to: Indication-dependent heterogeneity in the effect of double-suture cerclage: concerns over indication classification and a call for stratified analysis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether the number of sutures used during transvaginal cervical cerclage influences obstetric and neonatal outcomes when surgical technique, suture material, and perioperative management are standardized.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 125 women who underwent transvaginal cervical cerclage using identical monofilament suture material. Cerclage was performed with either a single suture (n = 23) or a double suture (n = 102) in this non-randomized observational cohort. The primary outcome was term delivery (≥ 37 weeks' gestation). Secondary outcomes included gestational age at delivery and selected neonatal outcomes. To address non-random allocation and baseline group imbalance, propensity scores were estimated using pre-treatment maternal, obstetric, and clinical severity variables. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with truncation was applied, and doubly robust outcome models were used to estimate adjusted associations. Neonatal outcomes were analyzed at the pregnancy level to account for clustering in twin gestations.
resultsWomen receiving double-suture cerclage presented at earlier gestational ages and with greater markers of cervical severity at baseline; however, after IPTW and doubly robust adjustment accounting for these baseline differences, no statistically significant difference in term delivery was observed. Secondary obstetric outcomes, including gestational age at delivery, were also comparable between groups after adjustment. Pregnancy-level neonatal outcomes, including NICU admission and neonatal mortality, did not differ meaningfully by suture number. Sensitivity analysis restricted to singleton pregnancies and stratified by cerclage indication yielded consistent results.
conclusionAfter accounting for baseline cervical severity and clinical indication, single- and double-suture transvaginal cerclage was associated with comparable obstetric and neonatal outcomes under standardized surgical conditions. These findings suggest that cervical status at the time of cerclage placement, rather than the number of sutures applied, is the primary determinant of outcome.
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.