Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42688633›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026

Ultrasound-indicated cerclage as a critical decision window in cervical insufficiency: a mini review of time-dependent risk interpretation.

Yong-Jin Park, Moon-Il Park

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yong-Jin ParkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dongtan Jeil Women's Hospital, Hwaseong, Republic of Korea.
Moon-Il ParkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dongtan Jeil Women's Hospital, Hwaseong, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ultrasound-indicated cerclage occupies an intermediate position between history-based prophylaxis and emergency or physical examination-indicated cerclage. Current guidelines generally define this intervention by obstetric history and cervical-length thresholds, but these categorical criteria do not fully capture the time-dependent nature of cervical insufficiency. This focused Mini Review synthesizes international guidelines, randomized and meta-analytic evidence, and recent observational studies to examine ultrasound-indicated cerclage as a critical decision window within a dynamic process of cervical remodeling and progressive structural failure. In this framework, sonographic cervical shortening represents a transitional phase in which risk has become clinically visible but may still remain modifiable. Evidence most consistently supports cerclage in selected high-risk singleton pregnancies with prior spontaneous preterm birth or mid-trimester loss and current cervical shortening, whereas benefit is less certain in low-risk populations with an incidentally detected short cervix or after progression to membrane exposure or advanced dilation. Interpretation is limited by heterogeneity in patient selection, cervical state, timing of intervention, and reporting of operative variables. Reframing ultrasound-indicated cerclage as a time-dependent decision window may help explain heterogeneous findings, improve interpretation of guideline differences, and support more precise patient selection. Future studies should report cervical-length trajectory, gestational timing, cervical phenotype, membrane relationship, inflammatory context, and transition to emergency operative states.

Indexed as

cervical insufficiencycervical lengthemergency cerclagepreterm birthtime-dependent riskultrasound-indicated cerclage

Identifiers

PMID42688633
PMCPMC13534988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.