ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Cerclage for singleton pregnancies with an extremely short cervix (≤10 mm) and no history of spontaneous preterm birth: A multisite observational study.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- When belief drives practice: The case of cervical cerclage.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: There is uncertainty about the benefits of cerclage in patients with transvaginal cervical length (TVCL) ≤10 mm and no prior spontaneous preterm birth. Our aim was to assess whether cervical cerclage in these patients was associated with prolonged pregnancy latency. Methods: This was an observational study of asymptomatic singleton pregnancies without a history of spontaneous preterm birth with extremely short cervix (TVCL ≤10 mm) in the second trimester. Exposure and outcome data were extracted manually from medical charts by obstetric providers, with all outcomes occurring prior to study initiation. All patients were prescribed vaginal progesterone and those with a cervical dilation >1.5 cm were excluded. The primary outcome was time interval from diagnosis to delivery (or 37 weeks' gestation, whichever occurred first). Secondary outcomes included gestational age at delivery, mode of delivery, and neonatal outcomes. We adjusted for parity and used log-binomial regression to estimate the relative risk for categorical variables and linear regression to estimate mean differences for continuous variables. Results: There were 247 patients with TVCL ≤10 mm during anatomy scan. After exclusions, 87 remained, of which 55 (63.2%) received cervical cerclage. At the time of diagnosis, the mean cervical length was 5.8 mm (cerclage group) versus 7.4mm (no cerclage group, difference: -1.6, 95% CI -0.6, -2.6) and the gestational age was 21.0 weeks (cerclage group) versus 22.1 weeks (no cerclage group, -1.1, 95% CI -1.8, -0.3). Mean pregnancy latency was longer in the cerclage group compared to the no cerclage group (13.4 vs 11.1 weeks, 2.2, 95% CI -0.3, 4.9), though there was a high level of uncertainty in the estimate. Term delivery occurred 30% more often in the cerclage group compared to the no cerclage group (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.96, 1.79). Conclusion: In our cohort, patients with extremely short cervix who received a cerclage had longer pregnancy latency than those who did not receive cerclage and more patients achieved term gestation, suggesting a potential benefit of cerclage in this population. However, given the high level of uncertainty of our estimates, additional research is needed to investigate these findings.
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.