ArticleCureus2026
Associations of Cervical Features and Preventive Interventions With Gestational Age at Delivery.
Article in Cureus, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective The primary objective of this retrospective cohort study was to explore the associations between cervical anatomical features and gestational age at delivery in high-risk asymptomatic singleton pregnancies. A secondary exploratory objective was to evaluate gestational age at delivery according to preventive intervention strategy (Arabin pessary, cervical cerclage, or no intervention). Study design This retrospective cohort study included singleton pregnancies managed at a tertiary hospital between December 2019 and December 2024. Eligible pregnancies had documented cervical evaluation (length, diameter, and funneling), intervention status, and gestational age at delivery. The first available cervical measurement was analyzed. Very early preterm birth was defined as delivery before 33+0 weeks to focus on clinically significant prematurity associated with intensive neonatal care. Methods Categorical variables (cervical length: ≤2.4 cm vs. >2.4 cm, diameter: ≤10 mm vs. >10 mm, funneling yes/no, and intervention type) were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Gestational age distributions among intervention groups were assessed using kernel density plots and boxplots. Time-to-delivery was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank testing. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models included intervention type (reference: cerclage), cervical length, diameter, and funneling. Given the limited number of events, multivariable estimates were interpreted cautiously because of potential overfitting and type II error. Results Among 174 singleton pregnancies, 30 (17.2%) delivered before 33 weeks, whereas 144 (82.8%) delivered at ≥33 weeks. Cervical diameter >10 mm was less frequent among pregnancies delivering before 33 weeks (3/30, 10%) compared with those delivering at ≥33 weeks (63/144, 43.8%; p<0.001). Funneling was more frequent in the <33-week group (15/30, 50.0%) than in the ≥33-week group (51/144, 35.4%), although this association did not reach conventional statistical significance in multivariable modeling (p=0.107). Kaplan-Meier analyses suggested longer gestation in the pessary and cerclage groups compared with no intervention, but between-group differences were not statistically significant (log-rank p=0.08). In adjusted Cox models, diameter ≤10 mm was associated with a lower hazard of delivery (HR: 0.398, 95% CI: 0.205-0.433; p<0.001). Other covariates were not statistically significant. Conclusion Cervical diameter was associated with gestational age at delivery in this cohort and may represent a candidate marker for risk stratification in high-risk singleton pregnancies. Because of the retrospective design, limited event numbers, and potential indication bias in intervention assignment, these findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive evidence of intervention effectiveness or equivalence. Larger prospective and multicenter studies are needed.
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.